Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Recycling (Southwark)

Simon Hughes: What support her Department has committed to the new waste recycling site in the London borough of Southwark; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: In January, we awarded £34.5 million in private finance initiative credits to Southwark for an integrated waste management contract to help deliver national targets for recycling and diversion from landfill.

Simon Hughes: The Government's support for Southwark's waste policy is much appreciated, as the Minister will know. Can he now give an assurance that the announcement by the Mayor of London that there is to be a London-wide facility will not in any way jeopardise the proposals that the Government and Southwark's local authority have agreed, and that the local authority can continue making the financial arrangements that are not only in Southwark's interest but in the interests of London as a whole?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I can. No decision has yet been made on the future structure of waste management in London—the announcement was of the Mayor's desire rather than of any outcome. It is vital that the investment already in the pipeline continues to go in, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. In fact, I met representatives from Southwark council this week to discuss his concerns, and made that point to them strongly.

Common Agricultural Policy

David Amess: If she will make a statement on plans for further reform of the common agricultural policy.

Margaret Beckett: We played a leading role in securing major improvements to the CAP in 2003. We have made reform of the sugar regime a top priority during our EU presidency. We are working towards an ambitious outcome on liberalisation of agricultural trade in the World Trade Organisation. In addition to that, we have called for a fundamental review of the whole EU budget, including the CAP, within the next few years.

David Amess: It is clear from Government evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee on the future financing of the CAP that the Brussels ceiling of financing will be reached by 2008. How do the Government intend to address that?

Margaret Beckett: Of course, it will not just be the Government who must address that but the whole European Union. If that ceiling is breached in 2008, which I accept is a possibility, there will have to be a discussion as to how expenditure is brought back beneath the ceiling. That was agreed in 2003, but the exact mechanisms for doing so were not agreed and would no doubt have to be discussed.

James Paice: Given that Commissioner Mandelson said on Tuesday,
	"It is absolutely and unequivocally not the intention of the Commission to use the"
	Hong Kong negotiations,
	"to precipitate a new phase of CAP reform"
	is not it clear that despite the Prime Minister's tough words in the summer, nothing has happened under the UK presidency to deal with the problems of export subsidies or the other reforms that everybody requires? Can the Secretary of State at least confirm the rumours that we have heard that Downing street, at any rate, is now considering the Conservative party's proposals for co-financing of the CAP on an ascending basis, which we put forward in the summer?

Margaret Beckett: No, the Commissioner's statement does not mean any such thing. The handling of proposals on export subsidies is very much part of the negotiating package, but it is absolutely the Commission's view, and the view of every member state, that that must be approached in parallel with the issue of export support given by other partners in the WTO negotiations. It must therefore be considered alongside export credits, state trade enterprise work or food subsidies. It remains absolutely in play, however, and we await moves from others to show what they would do in parallel. As to the issue of co-financing, that is raised from time to time, and I am interested that it is still the view of the Conservative party that that should be pursued. The hon. Gentleman will know, I am sure, that that is not popular with everybody. The main thing that we must bear in mind is that whatever changes might be made, at any point in the future, there is a single market in farm produce and a level playing field across the European Union.

Avian Influenza

Celia Barlow: What preparations she is making for the possibility of an outbreak of avian influenza in the United Kingdom.

Ben Bradshaw: Preparations for dealing with an outbreak of avian flu are detailed in our contingency plan, which is available in the Library of the House and on DEFRA's website.

Celia Barlow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is liaising with the Department of Health to develop a joined-up strategy in the event of an incident of bird flu in the United Kingdom? Given Britain's presidency of the European Union, what leadership are the Government giving to our European colleagues?

Ben Bradshaw: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, yes, I can confirm that we have been working closely with the Department of Health, going back several years, long before the issue of avian flu, I suspect, came across many Members' radar screens. On the second part of her question, she is right that the UK has an important role in the presidency. She might or might not be aware that there is an intention to bring forward a new directive on avian flu under our presidency, and we are working hard on that, as well as on improving surveillance and the contingency plans of other countries that might not be so well developed as ours.

John Randall: The Minister will be aware, no doubt, that the World Health Organisation and other UN departments have said that any cull of wild birds is not feasible and not necessary. Will he get his Department to issue a statement to the effect that such a cull is not required?

Ben Bradshaw: I can certainly confirm that such a cull would not be feasible. Indeed, the strain of the virus that is carried by wild birds is generally a very low one and most wild birds would die long before they get here.

Chris McCafferty: Do the Government support the EU proposal to reimburse some developing countries the cost of vaccine purchase and other obvious costs that will come if a pandemic were to arise?

Ben Bradshaw: That is not really a question for my Department, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have been working very closely with the Department for International Development, which recognises, as all sensible people do, that avian flu is a global problem that requires a global solution.

Julian Lewis: No one can envy Ministers as the danger of avian flu inexorably approaches this country. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, when this crisis reaches our shores and given the warning that has been given, the Government's response will be a little more effective, open-minded and efficient than the response to foot and mouth disease? That was a terrible burden for Ministers. They did not entirely measure up to it. We have had plenty of warning of this one. Is he confident that preparations are ready?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I am. As I say, we have been working on a contingency plan for years now, and doing so very closely with the industry, which is supportive of both the contingency plan and the measures that we have taken to date. The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that the contingency plan has been tested already in July, when we had an outbreak of another serious avian disease—Newcastle disease—in Surrey, where it was successfully contained and eradicated on one pheasant farm, which is a potentially more difficult situation than with chickens. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by DEFRA officials and vets there in doing that so well.

Michael Jack: The Minister may be aware that the Ribble estuary—one of the most important sites for migratory wading birds—is in my constituency. Notwithstanding his earlier comments about what may happen to migratory birds with avian flu, will he consider organising a localised information campaign to ensure that people in places such as the Ribble estuary, Morecambe bay and others with a high prevalence of migratory birds are informed of the facts about the disease, what to look for and, more importantly for members of the public who are not wildfowlers, what to do?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. The Government have already increased the surveillance that we carry out, and we have also been working very closely with wildfowler organisations, shooters and ornithologists to get their help, and if they see unusual die-off in wild birds, to report it immediately. We will do more in the weeks to come to disseminate information on the surveillance of wild birds more generally to the public locally and regionally and to tell the keepers of birds what they should do if they are worried that they may have an infection on their farms.

Norman Baker: I recognise that the Government are doing their best to strike the difficult balance between providing proper precautionary biosecurity measures and not damaging farming or alarming the public unnecessarily. On measures to protect the public, will the Minister consider further controls on the illegal importation of wild birds and perhaps the suspension of bird fairs? On protecting farming, will he recognise that we do not want to require, unless we absolutely must, all free-range poultry to be kept indoors because that would severely damage a part of farming that we all want to support?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point about free-range birds. We do not think that the time is yet right to ask farmers to bring their birds indoors, although we have recently issued new biosecurity advice, recommending that they feed and water their flocks inside because that can substantially reduce the contact that chickens have with wild birds. On his first point, illegal imports are just that, illegal, and he may have read in the newspapers that we are stepping up checks for such imports at airports and ports, but I do not think that it is necessary to ban pet fairs at this stage.

Oliver Letwin: While I am sure that the Minister will confirm that infected birds themselves, if they arrive in the UK, are unlikely to be the method of transmission of any mutated disease that could lead to a pandemic, will he nevertheless confirm that it is of the greatest importance that those who are in charge of poultry operations should be alerted to the issue, that there should be clear steps on monitoring and that protective devices should be provided for people handing poultry so that the avian form of the flu does not transmit itself in a virulent form to them?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I absolutely agree with that. It is also important for us to reflect on the fact that the disease has been quite widespread among poultry in south-east Asia for two or three years, but has infected relatively few people. We would have much better protection for poultry workers and anyone who was going to go on to a farm in this country to deal with an outbreak.

Oliver Letwin: I am delighted that the Minister and I agree about that. How, then, does he explain the fact that when my office rang 25 commercial poultry dealers over the past 48 hours, we discovered that 16 had not received any communication from his Department and could not give a positive answer to the question, "Has DEFRA offered any assistance in identifying possible signs of an outbreak?", or the question, "Has DEFRA offered any advice on protective clothing?"? Why is the Department not taking the action that it could now to diminish the chances of a problem later?

Ben Bradshaw: It is difficult for me to comment without knowing the businesses to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. One of the challenges that we face is the fact that there is no requirement in Britain or the European Union to register a poultry business, so we will address that matter with the industry in the weeks to come. It is actually the responsibility of some of the businesses themselves to find out what they should be doing. Information is readily available on our website and is also being made available by their trade organisations and the British Poultry Council. The businesses should be asking their vets what to do. This is something that is really up to them, rather than it being for the Government to find out where they are and let them know.

Over-30-month Scheme

Bob Blizzard: If she will make a statement on the over-30-month scheme.

Jim Knight: The over-30-month scheme is expected to continue after the over-30 month rule is lifted on 7 November until the beginning of January 2006 at the earliest. It will then be replaced by a voluntary three-year scheme: the older cattle disposal scheme.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be welcomed by beef processors such as the Birds Eye factory in my constituency. Will he now focus his efforts on trying to get exports of this beef resumed because that would help farmers as well as people who make their living producing burgers?

Jim Knight: Yes, the end of the over-30-month scheme will be good news for the Birds Eye factory that my hon. Friend represents so well in the House. We are working hard in Brussels to get the export ban lifted as soon as possible, but I must warn him that that is unlikely to happen before February 2006 at the earliest.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made on the matter and refer him to the editorial of the Western Morning News earlier this week, which said that the Ministers
	"Lord Bach and Mr. Knight have made important moves in the right direction. For that, they deserve some acknowledgement."
	However, the editorial also says:
	"They must keep it up."
	In the interests of continuing in the right direction, will my hon. Friend say something more about how the sales of beef might be promoted and especially the idea from the Western Morning News that embassies should be used to promote British beef throughout the export market?

Jim Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The embassies are active in the way in which the Western Morning News would like them to be. The piece referred to the beef summit, which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Bach last week and agreed £5.5 million funding for marketing beef domestically and overseas over three years, £1 million to increase efficiency by sharing best practice and a further £1.5 million for the red meat industry over two years to increase efficiency in the whole supply chain and groupings of producers.

Bees

David Taylor: What recent steps have been taken to protect the health of the bee population.

Jim Knight: DEFRA is spending £1.2 million this year to protect the English honey bee population. This season, beekeepers have benefited from more than 20,000 colony inspections and an extensive programme of training, including 600 technical events, delivered by the national bee unit to help them improve disease control through good apiary management. I wish them all the best for the national honey show at Hendon this weekend.

David Taylor: The sting in the tail of any future DEFRA cuts in the bee health programme could be a halved inspectorate and the loss by disease of bee colonies throughout the land, which would decimate their pollination contribution to UK agricultural output. Will the Minister further explain his thinking to the House and to Britain's 30,000 beekeepers and tell us whether the Government are doing anything to protect and extend crucial bee habitats?

Jim Knight: Bees are vital for the pollination of crops and wild and garden plants, which is why we continue to spend over £1.5 million a year on bee health. No cut has been made. We are gathering evidence on the effectiveness of the shook swarm technique in dealing with European foul brood disease. If that suggests that changes in the service may be appropriate, we will then consult on those changes. In the meantime, measures such as the environmental stewardship schemes will, I am sure, help protect and improve bee habitats.

Anne McIntosh: The fact is that there is a cut of £250,000, and the risk of infection is much greater than is warranted by that minuscule saving. What message is the Minister giving to beekeepers in north Yorkshire and elsewhere in Great Britain?

Jim Knight: The hon. Lady needs to listen carefully; the message that I give them is that no cut has been made.—[Interruption.] No cut has been made. If it becomes appropriate, following the research that I described, to change the arrangements, there will be consultation.

John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the honey bees kept by the nation's 30,000 beekeepers contribute about £120 million a year to the agricultural economy through pollination? Does he recognise that European foul brood is, in effect, the avian flu of the bee world, and will he assure us that no cuts in inspection will be made while this and other diseases remain a threat?

Jim Knight: The total revenue of those who keep bees in the UK is estimated to be about £11.3 million, and the value of the role of bees in pollination in the UK has been estimated at between £120 million to £200 million, so we take these matters extremely seriously. That is why we continue to spend the money. We understand the threat posed by European foul brood disease, and the greater threat posed by American foul brood disease, which is why we are committed to sustaining bee health.

Owen Paterson: The Minister is not being straight with us. This morning, I talked to Dr. Ivor Davis, chairman of the British Beekeepers Association. He is adamant that pollination, which as the Minister says, and ADAS confirms, is worth £120 million to British agriculture, is jeopardised by the proposed cut, which would reduce the number of inspectors. Will the Minister confirm now that the programme and the number of inspectors will be maintained in full?
	If I may help the hon. Gentleman, I point out that he could find £250,000 by making a modest saving from DEFRA's astonishing annual travel budget of £2,224,000 or from the incredible £8,959,406.49 spent on only three outside law firms, as revealed in written answers in February.

Jim Knight: We will maintain the programme unless research suggests that we can make savings. Our first commitment is to bee health and to all the implications that we have been discussing.

Owen Paterson: What about inspectors?

Jim Knight: And inspectors.

Single Farm Payment Scheme

Graham Stuart: If she will make a statement on the progress of implementation of the single farm payment scheme.

Margaret Beckett: The Rural Payments Agency continues to validate claims, to digitise new and amend existing land parcels, and to register new customers applying to the single payment scheme. As we announced earlier this month, the RPA remains on course to start payments next February.

Graham Stuart: As you can observe, Mr. Speaker, the arm twisting in the Conservative leadership contest is getting quite serious.
	On the subject of arm twisting, I want to ask the Secretary of State about a particular case in my constituency, that of Messrs Caley and Leake, farmers in Paull, near Hull. Due to the illness of their secretary and a holiday, they were 15 days late submitting their application for the scheme. Because they made a mistake they have been told that no payment will be made to them; there is no provision in the legislation for making one. That is clearly an injustice, and I raise it on behalf of farmers like them throughout the country. If the Rural Payments Agency were a paragon of efficiency, if DEFRA itself were run with peerless efficiency and if there were not endless delays in payments—which we are glad to hear will be made in February—the position might be justified. As it is, it cannot. Will the right hon. Lady please look into the matter and reverse that iniquitous decision?

Margaret Beckett: I am not in a position to comment on the individual constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because unfortunately I do not carry in my mind a comprehensive memory of every farm building in the country. If he raises the matter with my Department, we will look into it, but farmers the length and breadth of the country have had months, if not years, in which to consider their applications and submit them.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State reinforce the message that she has given the House that despite the serious difficulties that the RPA faces we are on track to make payments in February? Will she reassure farmers who face difficulties that that will happen?

Margaret Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that we remain on track for February. My colleague in the House of Lords and I monitor closely the developing situation. He will know that one reason for the problems that have been experienced is the increase of over 1,000 per cent. in requests for land to be digitised and for land parcels that have already been digitised to be amended. Such an increase, I am afraid, impacts on the speed of delivery.

Elfyn Llwyd: A few weeks ago, I wrote to the right hon. Lady about the beef special premium scheme and extensification schemes, which were being cut back severely, thus causing considerable hardship throughout the UK, especially Wales. I received a response from her colleague Lord Bach on 4 October saying that the Government have plans to draw down £5.5 million from the European Union to alleviate the problems. That money will not be match funded, although other EU states regularly match fund and will do so to alleviate the problems. The right hon. Lady's colleague in Ireland, for example, will more than match fund the sum to be drawn dawn. Will she therefore reconsider her position urgently?

Margaret Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will know that what happens in other parts of the UK is different because different decisions are made and there are devolved powers. I will, of course, take heed of his observations.

William McCrea: If other regions in the United Kingdom can pay out single farm payment at an earlier date will she allow that?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that other parts of the United Kingdom have made different decisions about the basis of payment, and it is for them to explain those decisions to their farmers and make their own arrangements. In England, however, we have put in place a system which, in the longer term, after what is bound to be a difficult first year, will make life much simpler and sustainable for English farmers.

Household Energy Efficiency

Brooks Newmark: If she will make a statement on progress in promoting household energy efficiency.

Elliot Morley: The Government set out an ambitious package of measures for the household sector in the energy efficiency action plan last year and key elements of this have now been implemented.

Brooks Newmark: Councillor Roger Walters of Braintree district council has recently introduced an innovative council tax rebate scheme that rewards home owners who choose to improve household efficiency by installing wall cavity insulation. How can the Minister justify lowering the standards of energy efficiency regulation promised in the 2003 White Paper when local government is already paving the way in promoting energy efficiency?

Elliot Morley: I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman means when he speaks of lowering the standards of energy efficiency. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that part L of the new building regulations is to be upgraded from April next year. There is also to be a new code of sustainable building, which will go beyond the new higher levels and which we will apply to dwellings built with Government money. The scheme in Braintree is innovative, and I congratulate the council on working with Centrica on the energy efficiency commitment, which was introduced by the Government. Such schemes have much to teach other councils about energy efficiency.

Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware of a 2004 survey by the Building Research Establishment, which found that one third of new homes did not comply with energy efficiency standards? Does he accept that the potential problem of energy efficiency in new buildings undermines the good work of the energy efficiency action plan and new building regulations? Will he communicate to his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the urgency of addressing the issue and possibly introducing further regulations to assist the implementation of the existing ones?

Elliot Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is one thing to have new higher standards, but if the regulations are not enforced, they do not count for very much. The failure rate in the pressure testing of new homes is unacceptable. I am glad to say, however, that as part of the package announced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, it is intended to raise the inspection level and standards of pressure testing of new homes. That must go with the new higher standards.

Andrew Turner: Does the Minister intend that through the planning process, local authorities should be able to set higher targets than those that he has set? What is the Government's target for the number of zero-energy houses to be built in the south-east?

Elliot Morley: The Government are keen to encourage the building of zero-energy houses. Local authorities can influence that through the planning regulations and the planning detail that they go into in relation to new developments. The code of sustainable building that I mentioned will be designed with a series of levels. The highest level will be zero emission. It will go further than the current "excellent" standard for eco-building from the BRE. I know that local authorities such as the Greater London authority are extremely interested in promoting low carbon and zero-carbon homes as part of new developments such as the Thames Gateway. Local authorities have a key role to play in that.

Edward Balls: Will my hon. Friend join me in highlighting the progress that has been made over the past few years in tackling home energy efficiency and fuel poverty by the Warm Front programme, which is run by one of Britain's leading social enterprises and has helped over 1 million homes in our country and over 1,600 homes in my constituency? Will he reassure pensioners in my constituency that under the present Government no part of our home energy efficiency programme will be returned to VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent.?

Elliot Morley: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we have no plans for the latter, although I would not presume to speak for the Chancellor. That would be very unwise, but other hon. Members are free to take their chances. The Warm Front programme has been extremely successful in taking millions of pensioners, people on low incomes and disabled people out of fuel poverty, in line with the Government's manifesto commitments. In the current round, £170 million is allocated for that. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Eaga is the organisation delivering that programme and doing that very well. I encourage all hon. Members to take part in the promotion of those schemes during the Warm Energy week, for the benefit of their constituents.

Daniel Rogerson: Given the role that community heat schemes can play in promoting household energy efficiency, does the Minister believe that the renewables obligation should be extended to promote renewable heat, particularly in relation to biomass?

Elliot Morley: We are undertaking a climate change programme review and renewable heat is one of the issues under consideration. The community energy programme has been very successful in encouraging biomass projects and community district heating projects, and we will continue it.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take urgent action to increase energy efficiency and microgeneration? The Government should stop talking about energy efficiency and actually do something to deliver long-term improvements in it. It is vital that they provide certainty to allow investment in the market for energy efficiency and microgeneration, which would lead to a price reduction and is a major step towards tackling climate change. Will the Minister confirm that he is seeking to introduce energy efficiency measures—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too many supplementaries.

Elliot Morley: May I gently point out to the hon. Lady that this Government introduced the energy efficiency commitment, which has been successful? We also introduced the Warm Front programme, which we have discussed, and the decent homes standard, which will raise the standard of local authority housing. Those Government commitments have assisted millions of people and are not insignificant. I am a great enthusiast for microgeneration and welcome the fact that my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are consulting on an action plan for microgeneration to see how we can promote it and address barriers that might restrict its growth. A lot of the technology is produced in this country, and it can contribute to reducing emissions.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has said that his approach is successful, but the latest figures show that CO 2 emissions from the domestic sector have risen from 37.7 million tonnes in 1997 to 41.2 million tonnes. Buildings contribute almost half of all Britain's greenhouse gas emissions. Why have the Government cut their own target for household savings from 5 million tonnes to 4.2 million tonnes of CO 2 ? How can the Minister justify a 16 per cent. reduction in his own target?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman must understand that we are not interested in cutting targets, but we must work on the current figures from the domestic sector. The domestic and non-domestic sectors are major contributors to CO 2 emissions and the issues are not simple. The Government are not hiding information and we are trying to be open and transparent. We have introduced new measures, which have not been seen before in this country, and we are confident that we will make progress on reducing CO 2 emissions from those sectors.

Live Animal Exports

Tim Loughton: What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on restricting the export of live animals.

Ben Bradshaw: We have regular discussions with our EU counterparts on live animal exports. Last year, we agreed to improvements in the welfare of animals transported in the EU, although the improvements did not go as far as the UK would have liked. We will continue to press for more improvements and the hon. Gentleman knows that the proportion of UK meat exported live has fallen significantly under this Labour Government.

Tim Loughton: That may well soon change as live cattle exports resume to the continent. The Minister knows that animal welfare and transportation standards in the UK are far superior to those in most continental countries—and they are generally adhered to. Is he sure that standards have improved since beef exports were suspended, particularly for veal calves exported for fattening to places such as France and Holland, where transport and accommodation arrangements leave an awful lot to be desired?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I can confirm that welfare standards have improved and they will improve further when last year's agreement, which will specifically improve the conditions under which calves may be transported, comes into force next year. Veal crates, which have been outlawed in this country for a long time, will also be outlawed across the EU by the beginning of 2007.

Desmond Swayne: The Minister may be aware that several of us have had considerable correspondence from constituents, prompted by Compassion in World Farming, about the failure to observe a proper inspection regime at some of the Channel ports. What can be said to reassure them?

Ben Bradshaw: I am satisfied that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we probably have the best inspection regime of any European Union country. Indeed, if one asks the experts at the Commission how they think that Britain performs on the welfare of animals and transport, they too will say that we perform very well. One of the important measures that was agreed last year means that the Commission will be much more proactive in ensuring that the rules are applied evenly across the EU, including in member states that have not had such a good record as we have.

Dairy Industry

Geoffrey Cox: What recent discussions her Department has had with the dairy industry on pricing of dairy products.

Annette Brooke: If she will make a statement on the state of the dairy industry.

Jim Knight: The Government cannot get involved with price negotiations. However, through the dairy supply chain forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Bach, we have brought the industry together to develop collective solutions to some of the challenges it faces as it adapts to the reformed common agricultural policy. I firmly believe that there is a bright future for a modern, profitable and efficient UK dairy sector.

Geoffrey Cox: Does the Minister agree that some of the acute problems affecting dairy pricing might be alleviated if the processing sector could have the confidence that any future consolidation will not be blocked by the Office of Fair Trading? Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sent a direct and clear message to the OFT that future consolidation in the sector should be looked at in a European context, not a purely national one?

Jim Knight: There is a lot of talk about consolidation and it is suggested that co-operatives can control only 25 per cent. of the market. That is only a trigger. The competition authorities will consider each case on its merits. I am in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry about some of these issues and ensuring that it hears the concerns that are expressed to me by dairy farmers.

Annette Brooke: The pressures on remaining dairy farmers, such as a family farm in my constituency where individuals work up to 90 hours a week, include rising fuel costs and worries about potential competition from imports. Does the Minister therefore agree, despite his previous words, that the Government should play a stronger role in ensuring that an effective supermarket code of conduct is enforced so that we have a transparent and fair supply chain for milk? I emphasise fairness in all this.

Jim Knight: I repeat that markets should set prices. However, there are issues of cost that are being pursued by the dairy supply chain forum. As regards the supermarket code of practice, I am having discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and I will continue those discussions. Like the hon. Lady, I hear constituents say that they cannot properly register their complaint, but if the OFT does not receive any complaint it is difficult for it to act.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Robert Key: If she will make a statement on bovine tuberculosis.

Margaret Beckett: We published our strategy for the control of bovine TB in March. Working in partnership with farmers and all interested parties, we aim to bring about a sustainable improvement in the control of bovine TB over the next 10 years, with emphasis on keeping clean areas clean and achieving a sustained and steady reduction of disease in hot spot areas. I expect to make an announcement detailing our plans later this autumn.

Robert Key: May I encourage the Secretary of State to realise that this is an animal welfare issue concerning the welfare of badgers as well as that of cattle, and that it is likely that this year some 40,000 cattle will be killed because they have bovine TB? It would be a very bad thing if the publication of the result of the trials was delayed for yet another year. The British Veterinary Association has said that that would lead to increasing animal welfare problems in badgers and cattle, as well as an increased risk to human health. This month the BVA wrote to the Secretary of State—what is she going to say to it?

Margaret Beckett: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) met the president of the BVA earlier this week. The Government are keen to strike a balance between the proper maintenance of the full scientific trials and tests, consideration of the data, publication of the results and so on, and the need for effective action. We are taking account of the information that we have and I do not anticipate the long delay that the hon. Gentleman fears in making the announcement that he seeks.

Patrick McLoughlin: How many cases were there in 1998 and how many were there in the latest year for which figures are available? What is the total cost of the episode to the Department?

Margaret Beckett: Somewhere in my heap of papers, I have figures that may include those for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. However, I can say that there has been an increase of 18 per cent. a year—I believe that that is the point that he seeks to make. The Government acknowledge the seriousness of the problem and are determined to work with the farming community to tackle it.

David Heath: The balance that the Secretary of State mentioned is not being achieved in parts of my constituency, where cases of bovine TB are constantly coming to light and there is a huge badger population. Far from being an endangered species, it is common in my area. Let me reinforce the points that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) and the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made. First, the problem means huge costs and, secondly, there is a genuine animal welfare issue for the badger population. It is inconceivable that we should allow the badger population to suffer from an endemic disease and do nothing about it.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I do not dispute. As he and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) rightly said, there is an important animal welfare question, and we fully recognise that. I also acknowledge that there is considerable interest in and pressure about the matter. I have studied the BVA's recommendations. Although I recognise that there are serious problems in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he knows that that is not the case in other parts of the country. We are anxious to tackle the problem in areas such as his, but we are just as anxious, if not more so, to keep clean areas clean.

Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on the Krebs trial.

Ben Bradshaw: The culling in the Krebs trial will be completed by the end of November, with some surveying work continuing into 2006. Any interim findings will help inform policy decisions taken on bovine TB, including badger controls, before then.

Richard Ottaway: I have to confess that the Krebs trials are not at the top of the political agenda in Croydon. However, if my constituents discovered that the Government were spending money but not getting results, they would expect something to be done about that. If they found that £2 billion had been spent in 10 years, they would expect something to be done about it very quickly. If they further discovered that approximately 10,000 cattle were slaughtered in the first three months of the year, they would expect the Under-Secretary to set out a plan of action that could command the confidence of not only the agricultural sector but animal lovers.

Ben Bradshaw: That might be difficult. However, I agree that the problem has meant a considerable cost to the taxpayer. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we expect to make an announcement about further measures later this autumn. The hon. Gentleman's point is important because whatever we do must be based on sound science and be cost-effective. That is why we have worked on a cost-benefit analysis, which is based on the available evidence, including that from the Krebs trials and the four-area trials in the Republic of Ireland. We do not want to do something that will not work, might make things worse and cost the taxpayer even more.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the Department on its handling of this sensitive issue. The badger is a wonderful animal that is part of our wildlife and we should cherish it. Any Government action must be based on sound science, as the Minister said. Will he assure hon. Members that no action will be taken to exacerbate the problem by forcing badgers into clean areas?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Most scientists now recognise that small-scale, targeted culling of badgers may not only fail to help to tackle TB in cattle but make it worse. That is why I have a slight problem with the BVA's recommendation for targeted culling, without a definition of what the culling means.
	Let me point out to those hon. Members who said that the problem was a badger welfare issue that we do not have a live TB test for badgers, so any badger culling is bound to kill many healthy badgers as well as those with TB.

EU Emissions Trading Scheme

Crispin Blunt: If she will make a statement on the Government's management of the UK position in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.

Elliot Morley: The EU emissions trading scheme is a ground-breaking new scheme and a key element of the UK's strategy for tackling climate change. The EU ETS is a central plank of our policy of aiming to reach our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO 2 by 2010, and we are examining further options for phase 2.

Crispin Blunt: I am sorry, but not remotely surprised, that the Minister has completely failed to answer the question on the Order Paper. The question on the Order Paper concerns the Government's management of the UK's membership of the EU emissions trading scheme, and that management has been nothing short of an administrative disaster.
	The Government submitted their national allocation plan late to the EU. A few months later they sought a revision, which the EU refused. We are now in the absurd position of returning to a plan of which the Secretary of State herself said
	"Projections suggested that if we stuck with the original formula, it would have had a devastating effect on our industry."
	We are now back with that formula, and taking the European Commission to court—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This should be a question, not a speech.

Crispin Blunt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be best if the Minister tried to answer the question now.

Elliot Morley: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, but I have to say that I do not recognise those comments from the Secretary of State. Neither does the Secretary of State, who is sitting next to me.
	What the hon. Gentleman says is factually incorrect. The UK was the first European country to submit its national allocation plan. It is true that it was submitted on the basis that it was a draft, but that was made very clear to the EU, which then refused to allow further changes in the modelling. That led to a disagreement.
	I understand from my talks with industry groups that in most cases the plan has been implemented smoothly and effectively. Some odd individual emitters may have specific problems and, if that is the case, we shall obviously be prepared to examine the details.

Edward Miliband: As the EU ETS proceeds, will the Minister consider ways in which it might provide incentives for clean coal technology and new clean coal plants such as the one planned for Hatfield in my constituency? Does he agree that clean coal technology can play a crucial role in meeting our climate change obligations?

Elliot Morley: I do agree, and my hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement that he was prepared to support carbon abatement measures which would include clean coal technology. There are some exciting proposals in the UK for zero-emission power stations. My hon. Friend may also be interested to learn that, as part of the EU-China summit, under the UK presidency, we are working with the Chinese Government on a pilot project for clean coal technology. I hope that that will provide lessons that we can apply to UK facilities.

Vincent Cable: Given the rapid and unacceptable increase in CO 2 emissions from the aviation sector, will the Minister confirm that the Government firmly intend to incorporate aviation in the ETS? What would he regard as an acceptable growth rate, in terms of sustainability?

Elliot Morley: Under the UK presidency, we have made it one of our priorities to present proposals to include aviation in the scheme. I am pleased to say that the Commission has now presented its proposals, which we shall discuss at the December Environment Council. As for the growth figures and the calculation of the cap, they will have to be considered then as well.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the ETS is extremely important, it is not a panacea and cannot deliver significant cuts in emissions by 2010 or even by 2020? It may be several decades before the scheme makes a serious contribution to alleviation of climate change. Will he also confirm that aviation will join the scheme by 2008, as was originally intended, or has that date slipped?

Elliot Morley: While it is true that carbon trading schemes will have a progressive effect, we are already seeing reductions in CO 2 emissions as a result of, for instance, the UK scheme. We were the first country in the world to introduce a national emissions trading scheme, and it has reduced emissions of CO 2 . Indeed, it has reduced emissions of the whole basket of the five greenhouse gases, so I am optimistic that we will make progress. We want aviation to form part of the EU carbon trading scheme by 2008, but I have to be honest with my hon. Friend and recognise that we cannot guarantee that progress will be made through the various EU procedures by that date.

Emissions Reduction Targets

Katy Clark: What discussions she has had with (a) the Department for Transport and (b) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on cross-departmental co-operation to ensure that the Government meet their domestic and international emissions reduction targets.

Elliot Morley: The Department has regular discussions with both the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, at ministerial and senior official level, to co-ordinate climate change policy.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for that response and for all the work that the Department has done to reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that we meet our international targets. The Minister will be aware that road transport is a major polluter, accounting for more than a quarter of all carbon emissions, and that the railways are one of the most environmentally beneficial forms of transport. Can he reassure me that the environmental case for rail is being put to the Department for Transport and the ODPM, and will he agree to meet a delegation of interested MPs who wish to put the environmental case for rail and to discuss the Department's thinking on the environmental aspects of transport policy?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right about the valuable role that rail and public transport in general can play in reducing emissions from the transport sector. DEFRA and the Department for Transport have a very powerful joint public service agreement on reducing emissions from the transport sector, and we work together very closely. My hon. Friend will be aware of the investment going into the west coast main line and the upgrading of rail and signalling. Many new trains are being introduced on all our lines, which makes such transport more comfortable. I am only too happy to meet a delegation of MPs to discuss the environmental issues affecting transport.

Climate Change

Ian Lucas: What recent discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning action to reduce climate change.

Elliot Morley: The Department of Trade and Industry shares a public service agreement target with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide. There are regular discussions between both Departments at ministerial and senior official level to co-ordinate climate change policy.

Ian Lucas: At the next such meeting, will my hon. Friend, who has an outstanding record in this field, impress upon the DTI the genuine concern that exists in the microgeneration industry about the future of the photovoltaic demonstration programme? There is a real opportunity for photovoltaics to play a major role in the future, but there is concern that the DTI is not getting its house in order in taking this project forward.

Elliot Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. PV generation forms part of the action plan on microgeneration, on which the DTI is consulting. On my recent visits around the country, I have been impressed to note that some local authorities have incorporated PV into public housing and municipal buildings. I hope that we will see more such developments, which are supported by grant aid from the DTI and the regional development agencies.

Recycling

Jessica Morden: What progress is being made on reaching the 30 per cent. target for recycling household waste by 2010.

Ben Bradshaw: Provisional figures show that about 23 per cent. of household waste in England was recycled in 2004–05. That puts England on course to achieve its 25 per cent. recycling and composting target in 2005–06, and to achieve its 30 per cent. target by 2010. Waste is a devolved matter and, in Wales, it is dealt with by the National Assembly.

Jessica Morden: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Newport council and the charity Newport Wastesavers, which recently won a national award for their recycling partnership and aim to recycle 50 per cent. of household waste by 2007? Newport council pays just £40 per tonne of waste. Does he know why other schemes in the UK cost up to £600 per tonne and has the Department done a cost analysis of such schemes?

Ben Bradshaw: Not, I confess, that I am aware of, but it does sound as though we should have a look at the scheme that my hon. Friend's local authority has been running if it has been that successful and cheap. I congratulate it, through her, on that achievement; it appears to be setting a very good example. Generally, there is huge variation in performance across the country and I wish that some of the authorities that are not doing nearly as well would learn from Newport's experience.

Ducks

Philip Hollobone: How much public funding has been allocated to the elimination of the ruddy duck in (a) England and (b) Northamptonshire to protect Spanish white-headed ducks.

Jim Knight: The programme to eradicate the ruddy duck from the UK is an EU LIFE programme to conserve the white-headed duck population in Spain. It is co-funded by DEFRA and the European Commission, with DEFRA contributing £2.03 million towards the total cost of £3.34 million over five years. Given the movement of birds between sites, it is not possible to determine in advance how that funding will be allocated between regions.

Philip Hollobone: If avian flu does not get the ducks first, the EU-funded programme probably will. Is the Minister aware of the huge local concern in Northamptonshire about the culling of US ruddy ducks and is it appropriate for the British Government to support an EU scheme against our US neighbours?

Jim Knight: It is important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents understand that the programme is crucial to deal with a major threat to the long-term survival of the white-headed duck. In essence, the ruddy ducks are over-sexed and over here, they are going on holiday to Spain and they are causing all sorts of trouble, so we have to do something about them.

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Geoff Hoon: I will do my best to follow the last answer in Question Time.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 24 October—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government Handling of the Decision Relating to Railtrack", followed by a debate entitled "Licensing Laws Chaos". Both debates inevitably arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 25 October—Second Reading of the Electoral Administration Bill.
	Wednesday 26 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill.
	Thursday 27 October—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	Friday 28 October—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 31 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Tuesday 1 November—Second Reading of European Union (Accessions) Bill.
	Wednesday 2 November—Consideration in Committee of the Terrorism Bill.
	Thursday 3 November—Continuation of Consideration in Committee of the Terrorism Bill.
	Friday 4 November—The House will not be sitting.

Chris Grayling: The Leader of the House will be aware of the strength of feeling engendered by the Make Poverty History campaign and the expectations raised during the summer relating to the G8 summit and other international meetings. He will also be aware that the campaign is conducting a major lobby of Parliament in early November. Will he ensure that, prior to that lobby, we have a ministerial statement on progress made since the summer, and will he schedule a debate in Government time to coincide with that lobby to ensure that Members have a chance to challenge the Government over what is being done?
	Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that he got his growth forecasts wrong, can we have an early debate on the public finances? It seems that tax rises are inevitable. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the House to have an opportunity to hear how the Treasury's forecasting went wrong and what lessons can be learned for the future so that it does not happen again?
	Can we also have an urgent and long-overdue debate on energy supply? The Leader of the House will be aware of the concerns being expressed about the problem, but is he aware of comments by Sir Digby Jones today? He said:
	"They have accused us of crying wolf. Well now, it's five to midnight. If it is another mild winter, that's fine, but if it's a hard winter there won't be sufficient capacity for business and to keep pensioners warm. It will be back to the days of the three- and four-day weeks."
	Can we have an urgent debate on energy supply before—not when—we face that reality?
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House use ten-minute Bills as a means of introducing legislation on matters important to them and their constituents. However, the allocation of slots for next year has run into difficulties because we do not yet have dates for the recesses. When will the right hon. Gentleman publish the dates of next year's recesses so that the scheduling of ten-minute Bills can get back on track?
	Finally, press reports last weekend suggested that one of the Leader of the House's senior colleagues may have offered to sub-let part of his official ministerial residence to a girlfriend. Those reports followed the earlier controversy about whether Ministers should be allowed to continue to occupy official residences after they have left Government. Could we have a statement on what exactly are the rules that apply to the occupation of those residences?

Geoff Hoon: The Government strongly support the Make Poverty History campaign. We have put more money into international development to assist the poorest people in the world than any other Government in history—and certainly more than any recent Conservative Government. I shall therefore take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the support that we have given to help the poorest people in the world.
	Last year, in the lead-up to the Make Poverty History campaign, we found time for a debate in Government time on these matters, and I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will want to keep the House fully informed about the excellent progress made by the Government. I shall make sure that he is aware of the hon. Gentleman's request.
	As for the public finances, on a number of occasions economic pundits—usually enthusiastically endorsed by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—have suggested that lack of growth has caused difficulties in the economy. None of those forecasts has so far proved to be true. I am much more willing to rely on the economic success brought to this country by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than I am on attempts by Opposition Front-Bench Members to talk down our excellent economic results since 1997. The contrast between this country's economic performance since 1997 and its lamentable showing under the previous Conservative Government is remarkable. Again, I am not in the mood for lectures on that subject.
	The same applies to the question of energy supply. The shadow Leader of the House is not as old as I am, and it is interesting that he remarked on the three-day week. My limited recollection of the events of that period suggests that they took place under a Conservative Government.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about Bills presented under the ten-minute rule. We have only just returned after what has been described as a very long recess, so I am afraid that he will have to be a little patient while we decide the dates of the next recesses. After eight days back, I hope that he is not already anxious for another break. I realise that Conservative Members are probably preoccupied with other matters at the moment so I shall not distract them from the internal entertainment from which they are suffering today.

Andrew MacKinlay: As the Leader of the House has not yet decided on the recesses for next year—

Dennis Skinner: Are you going to congratulate him?

Andrew MacKinlay: No, I am not, as I want my right hon. Friend to do something—I want him to ensure that Parliament sits in September, although it would not be required to legislate at that time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament should not sit only when there is legislation to consider? I want the House to sit in September for ministerial statements and parliamentary questions, and there is no reason why that could not happen. Although no votes would be held, Ministers would be required to attend and those hon. Members who so wished could probe them and find out what was going on. Those who allegedly observe us would also have to be here, whereas at present the Press Gallery is like the Marie Celeste.

Geoff Hoon: As ever, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his voluble suggestions about how we should conduct business. He makes a good point, and it is obviously important that the Executive should be held to account. The question of September sittings is something that I will have to consider before I announce the recess dates. I am a member of the ministerial trade union club, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I would be delighted to see all hon. Members participating in the House's activities next September, not simply those who would like to attend.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has had a thoroughly good idea and I commend it.

Dennis Skinner: Would the Liberals turn up if there were no votes?

David Heath: I would.
	I appreciate that the next two weeks are, rightly, dominated by the measures to counter terrorism, but may I suggest an innovation for a week when the Home Office does not have a queue of new legislation with which to deal? Could we institute a countryside week, which would allow those of us who represent rural areas to have a fair share of parliamentary time? On Monday, we could have the first debate in five years in Government time on agriculture, including the parlous state of the dairy industry and the problem of bovine tuberculosis. On Tuesday, we could debate a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 to do something to stop the costly chaos that is enveloping village halls and small shops. On Wednesday, we could discuss the lack of rural housing, the effect of the iniquitous planning policy guidance note 3 on rural areas and the lack of public transport. On Thursday, we could discuss the unequal funding of public services in rural areas, including policing, our schools and our health service. Would not that be a useful way of spending a week?

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his press release out early. He made an interesting suggestion. At the time, only two Liberal Democrat Members were in attendance—one was just inside the Chamber—so I was going to say that it was a little rich for Liberal Democrats to talk about attendance, but I now see he has a recruit, so I will not make that observation.
	Countryside issues are enormously important to the House and to the Government. Certainly, we believe that they should be debated regularly.

Jon Trickett: Will the Leader of the House organise an early debate on the role, powers and responsibilities of the coroners courts, which seem to be beyond the pale, and their relationship with the other parts of the criminal justice system? Such a debate would allow us to explore the variable competence that coroners bring to the exercise of their duties and may inform the legislation that I understand is being prepared in one of the Departments.

Geoff Hoon: I shall certainly take that as a representation to the Lord Chancellor, who I assume is the Minister responsible for coroners and their courts. It is an important issue that is not always well understood. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views are passed on to the Lord Chancellor.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on the health service, in which I could highlight the fact that, according to ministerial answers to my questions, more than 100 hospital beds have been cut in recent years in Basildon and Southend hospitals? In that debate, we could try to ensure that money is spent on front-line services, so that our constituents get the health care that they deserve.

Geoff Hoon: As I told the House last week, the Government would be delighted to debate health. Last week, hon. Members were very concerned about the need to have a debate on health. The Opposition have a day on Monday and what have they chosen to debate—licensing. That demonstrates perhaps that the priorities of Opposition Members are not shared by their Front Benchers. I suggested last week that Opposition Members should put pressure to debate health on their Front Benchers rather than on the Government. It is important that we debate health because we would like to make it clear that the amount of public investment in the NHS since 1997 has doubled, and will treble by 2008; that we have 79,000 extra nurses, 27,000 extra doctors and 100 new hospital building projects; and that, compared with 1997, the NHS does 500,000 more operations each year. That is a remarkable achievement.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know that yesterday, on a deferred vote, the House voted for a European-wide marketing consent for a genetically modified corn, despite hon. Members knowing that the vast majority of people in this country seek not to eat such foods and despite there not being a single debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. He may not share my opposition to GM foods, but does he agree that our arrangements to scrutinise European matters are in great need of modernisation?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly, I believe—not least as a former Member of the European Parliament—that it is important to look carefully at the way in which the House scrutinises European legislation. I am of the opinion that we could do better and that we could engage in the debate about such legislation rather earlier in the process. Certainly, I know that it is something that particularly interests the Modernisation Committee.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a statement on the Floor of the House so that Ministers can be questioned about the decision to reinstate immediately to Sinn Fein its Assembly allowances worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and the intention to reinstate allowances and privileges in the House? Is not it wholly unacceptable that that should be announced in a written ministerial statement? Should not it come before the House? Will not people in Northern Ireland note the fact that the Government are proceeding contrary to the recommendation of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which states that the IRA is still involved in criminality? Will not any future attempt to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they should abide by IMC recommendations be rejected on the basis of the way that the Government are acting?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that I set out for the benefit of the House the precise legal position on allowances. Allowances for parties represented at Westminster have been available for some time. Obviously, the position of Sinn Fein was considered very carefully and that led the Government to propose a motion suspending Westminster allowances for a 12-month period, but that was contingent on the way in which Sinn Fein was operating and behaving. In the light of the IRA statement of 28 July, including the indication that the armed struggle was over, the situation is clearly different and one to which we are bound to apply the relevant legislation, which requires those payments to be made. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has concluded that he should lift the suspension of the allowances with effect from 1 November. That is a perfectly straightforward situation and it is wholly consistent with the relevant legislation as it affects the House.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Health to end the uncertainty about the Government's policy on banning smoking in enclosed workplaces in England by making a statement next week? Does he agree that such a statement should preferably announce the intention for a complete ban in enclosed workplaces in the whole of England or, if not, support for the Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill? Has he noted that the lives and health of non-smokers at work are now to be protected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and does he agree that the lives and health of workers in England, especially those who are non-smokers, is equally important?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which affects many people throughout the country and about which many people feel strongly—rightly and understandably. The Government have made it clear that they intend to introduce a Bill in this Session. Obviously, the details of that Bill are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Over the summer, there was extensive consultation and a large number of people responded, as did a considerable number of organisations. At present, Health Ministers are considering the results of that consultation, and I assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that at the first opportunity my right hon. Friend will bring the results to the Floor of the House and will set out the Government's position.

David Mundell: Is the Leader of the House aware that the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution found that relationships between the House and the Scottish Parliament— and, indeed, between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive—were based purely on good will rather than on any proper and identified procedures? Will he make a statement about that, setting out how the Government intend to deal with the matter?

Geoff Hoon: As someone who once struggled, perhaps unsuccessfully, to teach constitutional law in a British university, I recognise that a great deal of our constitution is based on good will and is not codified. We do not have a written constitution. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the very good relationship between the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament. I am regularly involved in discussing arrangements between the two Parliaments; they seem to work extremely well and I am sure that that was the effect that he intended to convey in terms of his question, but certainly if particular and practical problems arise I shall be pleased to look into them.

Clive Betts: May I join the shadow Leader of the House in calling for a debate on the success of the British economy? At least I think that that was what he was asking for. In that debate, I would be able to point out that 20 years ago in my constituency we had one factory closure after another, one redundancy after another, that there were acres of dereliction and rubble nominally zoned for employment, and that in contrast since 1997 we have seen thousands of jobs created and major regeneration of derelict areas, to the point that last year unemployment in my constituency fell below the national average—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like an Adjournment debate to me.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the House is grateful for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, although I was rather enjoying the excellent account set out by my hon. Friend. Clearly, Conservative Members have very short memories. They have conveniently erased from their minds the record of the last Conservative Government: inflation peaking at more than 10 per cent.; interest rates at 15 per cent. for a whole year and over 10 per cent. for three years; social security spending doubling; and unemployment doubling—twice hitting 3 million. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to test your patience.

Hywel Williams: May we have a debate on investment in residential property through self-invested personal pension schemes—SIPPS? The Government intend to change the rules from April and that has given rise to fears of an unsustainable bubble in house prices, particularly in rural areas and in holiday areas such as mine. In addition, because the selling of SIPPS will be unregulated there are fears of mis-selling, as voiced by Mr. Iain Oliver of the Norwich Union. Might we have a debate on that?

Geoff Hoon: I have seen newspaper articles expressing similar concerns to those properly raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I emphasise that what is important to the Government and, I hope, to all Members, is that we encourage people to take greater responsibility for their pension arrangements. Any incentives to make better provision for pensions must be welcomed. I certainly take account of his concerns.

David Chaytor: This afternoon we have set aside about five and a half hours for a debate on the Thames Gateway. I do not deny that that is an important issue, but I question whether it sets a precedent for debates on other parts of the country. The M66 corridor, for example, which goes through my constituency, the M65 corridor and the M60 corridor are all very important to people in the north-west. I question whether debates on essentially sub-regional issues are the best use of the time of a national Parliament.
	Would it not have been better, for example, to have had a debate on an issue about which there is huge interest—the future of Britain's weapons of mass destruction? Now that the Prime Minister has opened up the debate on Trident, is it not essential that we do not allow Conservative interpretations of what constitutes national security or commercial confidentiality to limit the spirit of freedom of information about Trident in which the debate must take place? Is it not important—

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Chaytor: This is my final flourish. Is it not important that all the evidence is on the table?

Geoff Hoon: As each week goes by, my admiration grows for my hon. Friend's ability to ask ever more ingenious questions. I try carefully to note the issues in order to answer. The first half of my answer was going to be about the importance of debating other parts of the country. I recognise that the Thames Gateway is a highly important wealth-creating area of the United Kingdom and it is right that we should have this afternoon's debate, but I share my hon. Friend's view that other parts of the country are important—I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, I am sure, would agree on the importance of having a debate on the M1 corridor and other parts of the country.
	However, as it turned out, that was not the purpose of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear that there will be an opportunity to debate the replacement of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. That is of vital concern to Members and in the course of this Parliament it will be arranged.

Cheryl Gillan: Our prisons are dangerously overcrowded, reoffending rates are at record levels and our probation service is overstretched, yet for two years the Government have been handling a botched reorganisation of the prison and probation services without giving this House the opportunity to scrutinise their proposals. We learn today in a written statement that the legislation will be delayed yet again and that there is to be yet another consultation on abolishing probation boards. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the complete incompetence of the Home Office in handling changes in the prison and probation services.

Geoff Hoon: As I am responsible for the Government's legislative programme, which seems to be packed with Home Office Bills that allow an opportunity to debate such issues very regularly, I am slightly surprised at the hon. Lady's observations. Perhaps she was confining her remarks more precisely to the effect of sentencing and the consequences for prisons and the legal system. We certainly take very seriously the importance of providing appropriate arrangements for both prisons and probation. That is one of the reasons why we have been looking carefully at future reforms of the system. I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Lady that we take the issue extremely seriously.

David Winnick: On the anti-terrorism Bill, which is to be debated next week, I want to ask my right hon. Friend a question that I more or less put to the Prime Minister yesterday. Would it be possible to hurry up compensation to the seriously injured victims of 7 July? Perhaps there will be an opportunity on Second Reading for that to be included in the measure. There is great anxiety, as I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, about continuing delays and final payments—I mentioned this yesterday and I am sorry for repeating myself—that are simply inadequate. I think, for example, of those who have lost both their legs or one of their legs and have their whole adult life in front of them.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue once again. It is an important, sensitive issue that we must get right. I do not want to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, as he set out the Government's vision very clearly. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the purpose of the interim payments is obviously to provide short-term compensation for victims to allow them to adjust to the terrible injuries, from which I know many have suffered. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to take a little longer to determine longer-term questions of compensation simply to clarify the longer-term effects of such terrible injuries. I appreciate the fact that that is not always a sufficient answer for the victims or their families, but it is important that we get the figures and sums right.

Laurence Robertson: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his rather light-hearted response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about energy supplies? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Energy Minister, the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has on at least two occasions in this House said that there could be a gas shortage in this country were there to be a cold winter either this year or next? Is he also aware that the Government's report on energy supplies in July— for which provision was made in the Energy Act 2003 simply because of Conservative pressure—was rather flimsy on gas supplies? Is it not time for that debate to take place?

Geoff Hoon: I apologise if I gave the impression of not taking that important issue seriously—I certainly do. My constituency is a former coal-mining area, as the hon. Gentleman will know well having spent a very short time there once during an election campaign—[Interruption.] I knew that some Members would eventually get there.
	The Government take the issue extremely seriously. It is vital that we have appropriate supplies of energy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his recent speech at the Labour party conference the importance of securing sufficient and effective supplies of energy for the future.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the genuine concerns expressed by the trade union movement and employer organisations about the future of manufacturing in this country. Although the Government have a proud record of low unemployment, we are still losing too many jobs in the manufacturing sector. I therefore ask for an urgent debate on manufacturing because there is a perception among people outside the House—rightly or wrongly—that we do not give the priority to manufacturing that it deserves.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, not least because, as he rightly observed, there is a perception that somehow manufacturing in this country is not a success. It is an outstanding success. The truth is that it is so successful because we are able to deliver the same levels of output—indeed, greater levels—with a smaller number of people. The challenge for the country is to continue to support manufacturing effectively and efficiently, to allow the industry to continue to compete successfully around the world. We should certainly go on discussing and debating those issues to give them the right priority in the country.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House knows the Peak district very well, but is he aware of the great concern about planning applications for quarries? An inspection was due to start in September, but it has now been postponed for six months. The authority was ready to make its case, but the planning inspector decided that insufficient time had been set aside. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister makes a statement, perhaps next week, because the Peak district has the largest number of quarries—more than 70 active or inactive sites—of any national park in the country?

Geoff Hoon: I am familiar with the issues, and I recognise that there has been concern for many years about the planning process as far as the Peak District national park and our other splendid open areas are concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman has suggestions for improving the planning process, I anticipate that my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be pleased to hear them.
	At this stage, I am not able to comment in detail on the inquiry. I understand, however, that the Peak district representative did not object to the delay at the time.

Chris McCafferty: Given the imminent publication of the chief medical officer's response to the recommendations in Dame Janet's fifth report on Shipman, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have an urgent debate in the Chamber on the issues arising from the report?

Geoff Hoon: Until the report is published, I cannot anticipate what time will be available. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, however, and once the report is published I will consider the matter again.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House's response to the question from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) about European scrutiny is welcome. Will he give us a timetable, however, for when the European Standing Committees will meet again, given that, since the general election, we have been without such Committees, which probably weakens our scrutiny? Will he consider having an annual debate on the Floor of the House in the light of the Council's published annual programme, and a quinquennial debate over two or three days on the Commission's five-year programme?

Geoff Hoon: On the hon. Gentleman's latter observations, there are regular opportunities to debate European matters. My experience of such debates is that they are not always the best attended, but perhaps I could offer a deal whereby we would table opportunities for such debates if we could ensure that a reasonable number of Members were willing to participate in them. I would be delighted to hear the five-hour speech that the hon. Gentleman is offering, but having occasionally sat through speeches of a similar length from certain Opposition Members I do not anticipate that it would necessarily be the best use of parliamentary time. I am grateful for his observations on European scrutiny, however, and I believe that the current ad hoc arrangements provide effective scrutiny. He is right to say that we will need to establish permanent arrangements in due course.

Andrew MacKay: Following the Leader of the House's response to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), may I ask him to reflect on the fact that it was unfortunate, to say the least, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did not come to the Dispatch Box yesterday to make a statement? In the light of the Independent Monitoring Commission's recently published report, which makes it clear that it is too early to be certain about the Provisional IRA's welcome declaration that the war is over and states deliberately that it has no recommendation to make on allowances, will he assure us that he will not rush to the House to change the allowance regime for Sinn Fein Members until we are all totally satisfied that the war is really over?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience and knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland, so I will not trade my more modest knowledge with his. Given the long history of difficulty, trouble and violence in Northern Ireland, it seems to me—I am not offering my judgment in place of the judgment of those with greater experience—that, at this stage at any rate, in the light of that historic announcement it is not inappropriate that the House and the Government should respond modestly to try to encourage greater confidence on all sides in Northern Ireland, in the hope of moving towards a more permanent settlement. If we all sit back and say, "There is no change, and can be no change," there will be no change. We have a responsibility to try to make some progress in this difficult area.

William McCrea: May I press the Leader of the House on his answer? Although it might be true that the action taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland might be consistent with legislation, surely it is morally wrong that, after one month of the IRA's declaration, and while the Government promise that they will test the intentions of the IRA, the Government have now moved on this. Surely the Leader of the House realises that concessions to known gangsters and murderers drive back the possibility of the early restoration of devolved government rather than press it ahead. We need a debate in the House.

Geoff Hoon: Again, the hon. Gentleman has far more experience in these matters than I have. Sometimes, however, perhaps we should stand aside from the strong feelings and emotions in Northern Ireland, and surely this very modest proposal is a way of continuing to test the so-far successful approach of Sinn Fein to peace in Northern Ireland. By making this modest adjustment, we are not risking gangsters or further violence. All we are doing is trying to provide a modest degree of encouragement to a peace process that we all want to succeed.

Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House looks a pretty slim and fit sort of guy, but is he aware that if, God forbid, he were to have a heart attack, the best place to have it would be Staffordshire because ambulance service response rates are the fastest in Europe, which is what saves lives? Is he also aware, however, that under Government proposals to merge Staffordshire ambulance service with West Midlands ambulance service response times will be reduced? May we therefore have a debate in Government time on the future of Staffordshire ambulance service, given that it is Government proposals that are jeopardising the safety of Staffordshire residents and possibly even of the Leader of the House himself?

Geoff Hoon: I regularly visit Staffordshire, although I hope that I will not require the services of Staffordshire ambulance service. I have considered the proposals for more efficient arrangements for the ambulance service, however, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that ambulances will still be located in the same places—they are not all moving to Birmingham or the west midlands. They will still be in Staffordshire and will still have the opportunity of making the same response in the same time. I commend the excellence of Staffordshire ambulance service, and I see nothing at all in the proposals to change that.

Vincent Cable: Could a Minister make a statement to the House on the Government's management of IT projects? The key background documents, the gateway review, are barred to us under commercial secrecy provisions, and some of us have been informed by constituents that major systems, particularly the Inland Revenue's PAYE system, are in a state of complete collapse.

Geoff Hoon: That is not my understanding, but there are significant opportunities for Parliament and, indeed, for the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise, as it does carefully, major Government IT projects. The hon. Gentleman will know from his background and experience that such major projects—public or private sector—take time to come to fruition because of their complexity. I am confident, however, that the Government's record is no worse or better than that of anyone else who embarks on such big IT projects.

John Bercow: Given that the Foreign Secretary has stated that the world has a collective responsibility to protect all citizens from genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, is it not now right that the House should have the opportunity in Government time to debate how that important doctrine should be applied to stop the serial slaughter in Darfur?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised that and related issues on a number of occasions. This is something that the Government take extremely seriously. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is at the forefront of world leaders in emphasising the importance of our international obligations and commitments as well as translating them on the ground in places such as Darfur. The Government have consistently raised those issues and will continue to do so.

Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on Zimbabwe, where the situation goes from very bad to disastrous? Hunger and disease are now rampant. Day after day, opposition supporters are imprisoned without trial and face brutality, yet only the other day President Mugabe defied an EU travel ban to go to Rome. Why are the Government not taking Zimbabwe seriously? Why is the travel ban not being enforced?

Geoff Hoon: The Government do take Zimbabwe extremely seriously. Right hon. and hon. Members have had opportunities in the recent past to debate the appalling situation in Zimbabwe. The Government were at the forefront of the countries that ensured that the travel ban was implemented, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that every country has international obligations to the United Nations that override the travel ban. That is not in the United Kingdom Government's hands or, indeed, those of the EU Council; it is a pre-existing treaty obligation.

Tobias Ellwood: Following a question put to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is no longer in his place, the Prime Minister suggested that there might be a possibility of extending compensation to victims of terrorism wherever such attacks happen. May we have a debate or, even better, a statement on the Government's true intentions? Only three days ago, on 17 October, I received a letter from the Prime Minister saying:
	"Although I understand that there will be other families who share your view, I do not think that extending the territorial scope of the CICS to provide compensation for British victims of terrorism is the right way forward."
	We live in dangerous times and terrorism recognises no borders. I believe that protection for British citizens should not face any border either. A double standard exists on the Government's support for British citizens, depending on where such attacks take place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member. Questions should be brief—I know that more senior Members do not set a good example—but I think that that is enough to go on with.

Geoff Hoon: I think that I got the general sense of the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is right to raise what I described earlier as a sensitive and sometimes very difficult issue, and it is obviously important that the Government get it right. We want to provide appropriate compensation to the victims of those appalling incidents. However, I suggest to him, in the light of Mr. Speaker's helpful intervention, that next Wednesday there will be a debate on the Terrorism Bill, the scope of which will, I am sure, allow him to make those points and Home Office Ministers to address them.

Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House will be aware that any question of restoring allowances at Westminster is a matter for the House. Equally, however, the restoration of allowances in Northern Ireland is a matter of ministerial judgment, and it is perfectly appropriate that we should probe that ministerial judgment in a debate, especially as no Assembly is sitting in Northern Ireland. May we have that debate?

Geoff Hoon: I am confident that the arrangements available for Ministers to be accountable to the House, not least a regular Question Time at which Members can raise a wide range of issues concerned with Ministers' responsibilities, will afford the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members ample opportunity to pursue that matter.

David Davies: Will the Leader of the House request an urgent statement from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs to explain why her Department gave accreditation to DNA Bioscience for court admissible paternity tests, despite the fact that it has no laboratory in the United Kingdom and other firms have been told that a UK laboratory is essential? The press speculate that that apparent inconsistency could be due to the fact that, for a brief period, one of the firm's directors was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Surely there is no truth in that suggestion whatsoever. May we have an immediate statement to clarify matters?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last observation—there cannot possibly be any truth in that suggestion—but as for the other matters, again, there is regular opportunity for hon. Members to raise such issues with the relevant Ministers. To the best of my recollection, there was a Question Time this week for Ministers from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not raise that issue with them then.

Mark Harper: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from his colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? A constituent raised a matter with me this morning during questions, which is why I was unable to raise it then, about the impact that avian flu is having on the UK chicken market and the fact that products are flooding in from Italy, among other countries. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already concerned about that fact, but if action is not taken in the very near future there will be some very serious welfare issues in the UK poultry industry, about which the Secretary of State could perhaps update the House.

Geoff Hoon: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I was not present during DEFRA questions. I was attending a Cabinet meeting, where both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised that important and serious issue. The Government are ensuring that our preparations are among the best in the world, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear earlier this week. I know how seriously my right hon. Friend who has responsibility for agriculture takes the impact of the threat on the agriculture market and the people who work in it in the United Kingdom, so it is certainly a matter that we have in hand.

Charles Walker: As a member of Amicus and a former director of an employment agency, I was concerned that the unions mounted an anti-employment agency day on Friday. Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Government are committed to maintaining a vibrant and strong temporary employment industry that lubricates this country's competitiveness? May we have an urgent debate on the agency workers directive, so that we can be reassured that the Government will protect our economy from the directive's worst predations?

Geoff Hoon: I urge the hon. Gentleman to make his presence felt in his trade union and use his considerable influence as a Member of Parliament with trade union members. I am sure that they would be intrigued to hear the views of a Conservative Member of Parliament—from which, I suspect, they do not benefit regularly —but I advise him to be perhaps a little careful when he talks to them about the importance of employment. They have long memories of employment in this country under Conservative Governments. They can reflect, however, on the fact that 2.3 million jobs have been created in our economy since 1997, and on the fact that the Conservative party's scare tactics about the success of a Labour Government simply have not worked.

Philip Hollobone: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a crisis in NHS dentistry in Kettering and that there simply are not enough NHS dentists for the local population? Will he arrange a debate on NHS dentistry in Government time? Given that the Secretary of State for Health has declined my invitation to visit Kettering to discuss the issue and that the Leader of the House passes through Kettering station on his train journey home to his constituency, will he accept my invitation to visit Kettering to discuss the issue with local dentists and patients?

Geoff Hoon: In travelling to Conservative Members' constituencies to look at the excellent state of the health service across the country, I might risk not being able to devote my full attention to my responsibilities in the House. As I made clear last week, 1,000 more dentists have been recruited in recent times to deal with a problem that we recognised was affecting NHS dentistry. Those efforts in recruiting and training new dentists will continue. If there is a problem in Kettering, I hope that we can persuade a few of them to live in that wonderful town.

Graham Stuart: Does the Leader of the House share my appreciation of the Labour manifesto's commitment to community hospitals? If so, does he share my dismay at the fact that, while a primary care consultation is being conducted around the country and a White Paper is in preparation, beds and minor injury units are being closed at community hospitals throughout the country? The minor injuries unit at Hornsea in my constituency is to be closed and the aim is to cut beds, despite the fact that a pandemic is possible.
	Will the Leader of the House also allow time to review the Environment Agency's approach to planning for rising tides, as it has outrageously suggested the abandonment of Kilnsea in my constituency, thus leaving people—including a lady who bought a house there as recently as September, her having been told it was a low flood risk area—with blighted houses that could be lost. We urgently need to debate the coastal erosion issue.

Geoff Hoon: I struggle to see the connection between the two subjects—perhaps it is my lack of understanding. We all recognise the tremendous work that community hospitals do. My constituency office in Ashfield is across the road from a community hospital that does tremendous work and I, for one, will not accept any criticism of what it does. However, it is important to emphasise the fact that community hospitals exist for a specific purpose. It is useful from time to time that they have beds available and can treat minor conditions and ailments, but the reality of modern medicine is that we want the best treatment to be available for all our patients free at the point of demand through the national health service, which sometimes means that there must be appropriate adjustments to the facilities and the provision available through community hospitals.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes rising tides seriously and we will continue to look at that carefully.

Point of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and protection as a Member of the House in relation to a question that I tabled for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions this morning. When I left the House yesterday evening, the Question Book showed, as it had for many days, that I had Question 16. I thought that it was a fair environmental question because it asked what steps the Secretary of State was taking
	"to ensure that the UK's compliance with the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive is compatible with other environmental priorities."
	I picked up the Order Paper when I came into the House this morning and found that the question had disappeared. That has never happened to me in my entire career in this House. The Table Office told me that the matter was not its responsibility and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had transferred the question to another Department overnight. That is a strange way to behave towards Members of Parliament. No one from the Table Office or the Department extended me the courtesy of a phone call to alert me to the situation.
	A member of the Government team had asked me what kind of supplementary question I was going to ask, which makes me even more worried. I refused to give any detail but said that I was discontent with the way in which the Government were handling the WEEE directive. Following that interview, the question was transferred. If it becomes a principle that the Executive drive the programme of the House, it is a very worrying development.

Desmond Swayne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with the point of order, which will help the House.
	I can understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but, as "Erskine May" makes clear, decisions on transfers of questions rest with Ministers and are not matters for the Chair. However, Departments must make transfers promptly and ensure that the hon. Member is informed.

Geoff Hoon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I help the House? I will certainly make it clear to my ministerial colleagues that we would regard it as bad practice to transfer questions on the day before oral questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am not happy for anyone to probe hon. Members about their supplementary questions, which are asked after a Minister has replied. Those questions are no one's business except individual hon. Members.

Thames Gateway

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Yvette Cooper: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to debate the Thames Gateway, which is an integral part of the Government's sustainable communities plan. The Gateway also gives us an important opportunity to improve the economic prosperity not only of London and the south-east, but of the country as a whole.
	The Thames Gateway is about providing much needed housing, important jobs and economic opportunities in the future. It is about improving the quality of life for current and future residents. The programme includes the creation of 180,000 new jobs and 120,000 new homes, with 35 per cent. of them being affordable homes. There will be new investment in schools, health care facilities, transport facilities, green spaces and the local environment.

Bob Spink: If the Thames Gateway is to deliver its potential, along with all the housing and industrial development there must surely be a proper focus on infrastructure, so that we build the roads that we need to rid the south-east from the terrible congestion from which we suffer—including Canvey's third road.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that proper infrastructure needs to be in place, so that has formed part of our approach on the Thames Gateway. We need not only transport infrastructure, but community infrastructure. We sometimes think that the matter is simply about roads, but community and cultural facilities can be as important in underpinning local communities.
	We must deal with difficult transport pressures. Many areas throughout the country, whether they are growing or not, face congestion and transport pressure and a growing demand for the use of cars. Such problems cannot be addressed simply by building new roads, so we must also examine pubic transport and demand management more widely, as the Department for Transport has said. I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that fact.
	I went to Southend on Tuesday to open the Guinness Trust's new housing development at Victoria gardens. That is a good example of a brownfield development on a former gasworks site. The site had been left neglected and empty for a long time, but it now has 200 houses and apartments along with a hotel and doctor's surgery. The Thames Gateway gives us a huge opportunity to regenerate a sub-region on such a scale that it will have national or perhaps even European significance.

Howard Stoate: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that regenerating these potent industrial areas is absolutely crucial. Will she also ensure that we give adequate attention to job creation, because the south-east needs not more dormitory villages, but sustainable communities? Jobs should go with housing and one must not be developed without the other; otherwise we get a huge imbalance that creates more commuters and adds to the already great pressure on infrastructure.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. However, I want to talk about the area's economic potential before I discuss housing, because too often people talk about the Thames Gateway simply in the context of housing. I think that the Thames Gateway's economic regeneration potential is the most exciting thing about the region, because such regeneration will make it possible to develop housing in the Thames Gateway for the next generation. The area has remarkable economic potential for the creation of new jobs and investment. It is to the east of a fantastic capital city. Its economic potential, owing to its low-cost brownfield land and good access to the capital city, is something into which we have not yet tapped, so we need to do more. The Olympics will obviously present us with a great opportunity and I shall mention that later in my speech.
	The Thames Gateway has nearly 4,000 hectares of brownfield land—about 17 per cent. of the south-east's total—located between London and mainland Europe. The fact that it has been undeveloped for so long is partly because of the area's industrial tradition and also a huge example of market failure, given its location. The decision to route the channel tunnel rail link through the Gateway is critical, as is the creation of new stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet. That will provide economic opportunities, providing links not only to the capital city, but to Europe.
	As I said, the economic potential is immense. We need to work with the three regional development agencies that cover the Thames Gateway. The area that was the industrial powerhouse of London and the southern counties can be so again if developed in the right way. It is a great area to invest in—close to the heart of London and the increasingly accessible markets of continental Europe. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister and Deputy Minister launched "Sustainable Communities: Delivering the Thames Gateway", a strategic vision for the programme, showing what we have achieved so far and the vision for the future. We need to remember that much of the Gateway is part of the city and therefore presents great opportunities for regenerating the east of the capital as well as the towns and communities that stretch out of London along the Gateway.
	Already, over £1 billion has gone into transport infrastructure in the Thames Gateway to unlock the growth potential and support the communities, including the new high-speed domestic services for the channel tunnel rail link, which will operate from 2009, a new bus transit system for north Kent, and improvements to the public transport network in east London. We have also created a new £200 million community infrastructure fund specifically for the delivery of transport infrastructure in the growth areas, and we will be making announcements on the allocations from that fund by the end of the year.
	We should not underestimate the importance of skills. When we talk about infrastructure we always think of transport; in fact, the skills and education infrastructure, the support for people in the Thames Gateway, is perhaps most critical for investment and economic growth. That is why we are expanding three new universities, at East London, Medway and Southend, to increase access to learning and to raise skills throughout the area, and new university facilities and buildings are being used by students at the unique multiversity campus at Chatham Maritime. We are working to upskill the local market and create more choice and a different range of jobs in the area.

James Brokenshire: I totally agree with the Minister about the need for skills. Will she comment on the vocational training required for the development of the Thames Gateway? Many skilled technicians, planners, architects and builders will be needed to fulfil that vision. What will be done to ensure that local people have the ability to take advantage of that?

Yvette Cooper: There is a general issue about skills in the Thames Gateway, as the area has relatively low skill levels compared with the wider region, so there is a need to increase investment and raise skills and qualifications. The hon. Gentleman is right, though, to say that there is a specific issue about the kinds of skills, qualifications and expertise needed to regenerate a wide area such as this. That is why we asked the Egan review to consider the skills needed to support sustainable communities. One of its conclusions was that there is a need to provide a mix of skills, rather than having people working only within their own professional sphere.
	We set up the Academy for Sustainable Communities, which has its headquarters in Leeds. Its role is to start to develop the skills, qualifications and courses that may be needed in different parts of the country, thereby supporting the skill development that will be needed in the Thames Gateway. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, as he is obviously interested.
	There is also a need for investment in the health infrastructure, and we have been working closely with the Department of Health, which last year announced a £60 million funding package for the growth areas. There will be a change to revenue funding methods in order to support growth. We are working with the Department to support new developments and facilities throughout the Gateway, such as hospital expansion in Lewisham and developments in Newham.
	We should not underestimate the importance of improving the local environment to support the development of local communities and investment from businesses. The reality is that businesses will not invest where the work force do not want to live. The quality of design and of green spaces is a fundamental part of the regeneration of the Thames Gateway. That is why we have committed over £26 million to environmental projects to protect and enhance 53 hectares of green space—an area about the same size as the urban area of Greater Manchester. We want to develop that for future generations throughout the Gateway to enjoy.

David Evennett: My borough, Bexley, is quite a green borough, and I find what the Minister says very interesting. I endorse her remarks about the environment, but is she not concerned that the Thames Gateway bridge, which will be built in our area, will negate some of the worthy measures she is describing?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that as the Thames Gateway bridge has to be the subject of a planning inquiry I cannot comment on it. We have been clear from the beginning that the programme has to strike the right balance between supporting green spaces and developing the critical infrastructure needed for the development of the area.
	I want to say a little more about the housing growth needed for the Thames Gateway. My view is that housing growth is possible because of the economic opportunities in the area. This needs to be an economically driven and regeneration-driven programme, but it must also deliver the new homes needed for the next generation. We should be clear about the housing need that we face, particularly in London and the south-east. Over the past 30 years there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of households but a 50 per cent. drop in the level of new building. That is unsustainable. That is why, as the Kate Barker report made clear, we have seen a long-term increase in house prices, which are significantly higher than in other countries. We are simply not building enough homes for the next generation.
	That will have serious consequences for the aspirations and opportunities of the next generation of people who want to own their own homes. If we carry on at the current building rates, over the next 20 years the number of 30-year-old couples able to afford their own home will drop from over 50 per cent. today to under 30 per cent. That is unsustainable, and it is not fair to say to future generations that they cannot have the opportunities that their parents and grandparents had—unless their parents and grandparents are able to give them the money, or they are able to inherit it—to climb the first step on the property ladder. The case for building new homes is as much about inequality as it is about aspirations; it is as much about making sure that future generations have a fair chance to get their foot on the property ladder, rather than being dependent on their parents and grandparents.

Clive Efford: Has my hon. Friend seen the Shelter report "Building hope: the case for more homes now", which draws attention to the number of families, particularly children, in temporary accommodation? Across London, 73,000 children are in temporary accommodation. That highlights the need for affordable rented accommodation. The Government intend to halve the number of children in temporary accommodation by 2010. How many of those children will by then be in homes that their parents have been able to buy and how many will be in rented accommodation?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Shelter report highlights the serious housing pressures that we face, many of which relate to people who need rented accommodation. What we will increasingly see if we do not build enough homes is not just greater pressure for first-time buyers, who will not be able to afford a home if they do not have family help, but ever-lengthening social housing waiting lists. We have made it clear that many of the new homes that we build need to be affordable, so there should be a significant increase in social housing. We also need to support more shared equity housing, so that people are able to buy a share of their own home even if they cannot afford to buy it outright. That will support a mix of communities with people on different incomes throughout the country.
	Shelter has made it clear that we need to build more homes to do so. Many people have campaigned strongly against the building of new homes, but such opponents must accept what that means for the next generation not just of people who need social housing but of first-time buyers. They are denying future generations the opportunities that their parents and grandparents enjoyed, which is unfair.
	The Thames Gateway provides the housing market with a huge opportunity to build new homes that people want to live in. The new communities must not be dormitory towns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has said, but should be environmentally sustainable communities of well designed homes. We are tightening up building regulation standards and we will shortly publish a code on sustainable building to improve the environmental sustainability of new homes. There has been a great deal of support from MPs for the economic regeneration of the Thames Gateway and the building of new homes for the next generation, as they recognise the opportunity provided by economic growth alongside housing growth. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), who worked hard to establish the Thames Gateway parliamentary group, which many Members have joined, with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who will reply to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham is a strong advocate for his constituency, particularly in the area of skills development.
	The Opposition have an opportunity to clarify their position on the Thames Gateway. In January, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that a Conservative Government would scrap plans for the Thames Gateway. The Conservatives then prevaricated, and a few months later they said that they might support the Thames Gateway but not other growth areas. We believe that they ought to show strong support for the Thames Gateway, and they have an opportunity to do so in this debate. Do they support the best opportunity in generations to revive and regenerate a fantastic area to the east of the capital? Do they support the best opportunity for a generation to build new homes for our children, or is their message to people in the Thames Gateway that they would simply abandon them again? Is their message to first-time buyers considering the Thames Gateway that they do not want to help them and do not want them living there? To be fair, although the Conservatives have recently refused to trust their party's future to other members of his generation, Lord Heseltine was one of the first politicians to see the opportunities for the Thames Gateway. I hope that they return to his vision for its future and support economic and housing regeneration in the area.
	Investment is clearly required. The £6 billion committed across the Government to key infrastructure and transport, health, education, skills and environmental protection is critical. Over £500 million has been committed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to a range of projects that support growth and improve the quality of life for existing and new residents.

James Brokenshire: Do the figures that the Minister gave for investment take account of inflationary pressures? It is recognised that the Olympics and the Thames Gateway development itself will create inflationary pressures in building and the cost of getting things done.

Yvette Cooper: We should not simply accept that new building pushes up costs. That has been a mistake too often in the past, but we should do what we can to bring down costs, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister launched a competition to design a house for £60,000. Everyone said that it could not be done, but there has been a great deal of interest, and many organisations, companies and registered social landlords have shown that it is a possible to build a well designed house at an affordable price. We should therefore do more to bring construction costs down.
	There is already a great deal of investment in the Thames Gateway, but additional investment will be required for the Olympics infrastructure. Far more public investment has gone into that area to the east of London than ever before. It is a great opportunity, and we should make the most of it.

James Brokenshire: With all the inevitable construction for the Olympics and the development of the Thames Gateway, there will be a general pressure in east London and Essex on building costs, which will have an impact on services provided by local authorities and other public authorities. Careful reflection should therefore be given to the knock-on effects.

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we need to do something to address capacity, I agree, which is why we set up the Academy for Sustainable Communities. We also need to challenge the market, because as more land supply is made available we must ensure that the house building and construction industries deliver. They should not simply use it as an excuse to push up costs in particular areas. We need to expand the market and increase the capacity of those industries to deliver change.
	The Olympics will provide a huge opportunity. The Evening Standard reported that house prices have gone up around Stratford as people want to live in east London because of the Olympics. Many developments might have taken place anyway in east London and the Thames Gateway, but the Olympics will provide a fantastic opportunity to champion investment. Part of the success of the bid was due to the fact that long-term plans were in place for the regeneration of the entire sub-region—it was simply not a one-off bid for a project in 2012. Linking the Olympics to the Thames Gateway provides us with a great opportunity.
	Different arrangements are in place to deliver the project which acknowledges the different character of areas ranging from inner-city communities in London to small Medway towns. In last year's debate on the Thames Gateway hon. Members raised the nature of the delivery arrangements and the fact that various organisations and partnerships across the Thames Gateway work in different ways. Although we respect the diversity of the Thames Gateway area, delivery arrangements must be effective. We are working to ensure that that is the case and that we have the right leadership in place across the area to deliver change. We recently set up the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation, and there are other arrangements in other areas.
	There are clearly considerable challenges in developing the sub-region, but there are also huge rewards. Growth and job opportunities will be important for young people growing up in the Thames Gateway, but new housing, and the need to meet people's aspirations and provide opportunities for the local community are also significant. We have the chance of a huge renaissance in east London and areas to the east of the city over the next 10 years. This is an exciting opportunity for those communities, who need to lead with their own vision, celebrating the area's culture and traditions and seizing the opportunities for the future. This is a great opportunity for all of us, and we must make the most of it together. I hope, too, that it is a vision that has the support of the House.

Robert Syms: I am not sure that I have an interest, but I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I am the director of the family building and property company.
	I welcome the debate today. The last time we debated the subject was 15 November 2004. If this is a precedent for an annual debate on such an important subject, it is a good one. Much will happen in that part of London over the next 15 or 20 years. Contributions to the debate from local Members and those from adjacent areas are important so that on issues of public policy and planning, Members of Parliament have an input at the beginning of the development.
	We may not agree on everything, but there is probably more common ground on the Thames Gateway than on many other parts of the sustainable communities plan. We have concerns about the amount of development on green fields, but broadly we support the Thames Gateway. There is a logic to it, although towards the eastern end and the greenfield areas, it becomes more controversial. Today's debate will probably be constructive because it is in the interest of Members in all parts of the House that we get it right and have a sensible, mature public debate about this important development.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been constructive for the Minister to deal with building in the flood plains in the Thames Gateway? She should have addressed the building of the Thames port and told us when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would announce a decision on the Shell Haven port development. It would also have been more constructive had she told my constituents that they could expect a new terminus rail station and a new road for Canvey to deal with the new housing and industrial development that has been forced on them.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall touch on some of the flood issues. We are lucky enough to have two Ministers present, and if the issue of flooding is raised, I am sure it can be swept up towards the end of the debate. To be fair to the Minister for Housing and Planning, there is so much to talk about in connection with the Thames Gateway that it is difficult to know what to put in and what to leave out.
	As the Minister acknowledged, under both the Thatcher and the Major Governments a great deal of attention was paid to the eastern part of London. Lord Heseltine made a major contribution to public policy and vision in that regard. We know that London is a world-class city with great opportunities for development, but it is also a city of contrasts between extremely rich and extremely poor areas. The Thames Gateway offers an opportunity to develop a greatly under-used area and to provide good-quality development. There is great potential—4,000 acres of brownfield sites, which is about 17 per cent. of the total in the region.
	It is important that the development is sustainable, with local communities, jobs and facilities, so that people can live their life there without having to crisscross London. The scheme will require massive co-operation between the public and private sectors, together with joined-up government to ensure that the full range of public services is provided. Unlike other parts of the sustainable communities plan, a great deal of public investment will be needed up front—the Minister mentioned a figure of £6 billion. It is sometimes difficult to identify what the Government are spending under each heading and where the money is going. When he sums up, will the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), provide a list so that we can see how the £6 billion will be spent over the next few years? That would be more helpful for the public debate than merely speaking about "billions".
	As the Minister said, there are to be 120,000 new homes and 180,000 jobs in this large area, which measures 40 miles by 20 miles. It will be a major growth area for the next 20 to 30 years. Of the £6 billion, the Government have already announced £1 billion for transport infrastructure. There are some important schemes in the area. I had heard that the channel tunnel rail link was due to be finished in 2007, but the hon. Lady mentioned 2009. It is interesting how the dates tend to change at the end of infrastructure projects.
	Other schemes include the Greenwich waterfront and east London transit scheme, the docklands light railway extension to City airport, and the proposals for the Thames Gateway bridge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) mentioned and which will be the subject of an inquiry. There is an argument for improving links north and south of the Thames as transport links south of the Thames have not been the best, but I accept that there are concerns that if traffic is directed towards the south, that could put added strain on already overcrowded roads. I do not expect the Minister to comment, as a public inquiry is due.
	I shall not dwell on Crossrail, which has been the subject of many debates over the years. It is an expensive project and an important one for the development of London. I was struck by the contribution 12 months ago from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) who, in his usual way, mentioned the benefits to his constituency of the Jubilee line and pleaded that when Crossrail comes to fruition at some time in the future, there should be a Woolwich station. I saw the right hon. Gentleman in the lift this morning and undertook to mention it, as he has an important constituency engagement. I understand that Woolwich is the only town centre without a station, so local people are no doubt strongly in favour of a stop there when that major and very expensive infrastructure scheme is implemented.
	The Mayor and the London Assembly think that the projected housing figures are on the low side and that there might be the potential for up to 300,000 houses in the gateway, so there may be rather more and rather higher density levels. That could be achieved only if the transport infrastructure is put in at the beginning of the process. We need sustainable communities in the Thames Gateway so that education, culture and open spaces are available to the local community.
	The subject of skills has been raised by my hon. Friends and by the Minister. Because the eastern part of London still has unemployment blackspots, it is important that when the development takes place and a massive investment is made, we do our best to ensure that local people have the skills to participate in building up their own communities. If we do not, we may well find people from other European countries coming in under the single market to take those jobs. I welcome the Minister's comments about the schemes, but I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the importance of vocational training. The electrical, plumbing and building trades will be key to the development. One of the concerns is that with the preparations for the Olympics in 2012, there will be a skills shortage. The Government will have to face that challenge.
	This month, the London Assembly environment committee chaired by Darren Johnson published an excellent report entitled "London under threat? Flooding risk in the Thames Gateway". The report raises a number of concerns, which the Under-Secretary might address later. I hope he does not think this is scaremongering. Last time I raised the issue a year ago, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) presented the Government case in his usual robust fashion, but as tragedies across the world show, there are important questions to be answered.
	Fragmented responsibility is one of the major concerns about flood defences. The report suggested that there was a lack of clarity about what was putting London at risk. There is a web of different agencies in the gateway, some with overlapping responsibilities. Landowners are responsible for maintaining the majority of the defences, yet in some cases it is impossible to identify the owners. The committee was told that in 5 per cent. of east London, flood defences were in poor condition, so there is much work to be done. It concluded that information on Kent and Essex is less good than that on London and the Thames Gateway—the information is patchy, and some of the flood defences are worse than that. In the debate 12 months ago, one of my hon. Friends mentioned the major floods of 1953, and we must do all that we can to avoid major flooding before we build thousands of houses in that area.

James Duddridge: Do you agree that given the floods of 1953, which you have mentioned and which badly affected my constituency, funding and Government time should be spent on considering how to defend existing houses, rather than building further up the Thames Gateway in places such as Thorpe bay in my constituency, which is on a flood plain? Do you agree that that it would be better to spend resources on protecting existing accommodation, particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) will allow me a short tutorial: the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) should use the third person, not the second person—I have no involvement.

Robert Syms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has made his point.
	We all know that flood defences are amazingly expensive. It should not be beyond the wit of the fourth wealthiest country in the world both to protect existing home owners and to provide further sites for development.

Bob Spink: On flood defences, does my hon. Friend regret, as I do, the disbanding by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Essex flood committee, which has been merged with a much wider regional body that cannot understand the needs of our local area?

Robert Syms: That sounds like an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate.—[Laughter.] The issue will undoubtedly come up again, but I do not know a great deal about it, so I shall stay away from it.
	We know that 1.25 million people in London are at some risk of flooding. If there were flooding in the Thames Gateway, the cost of the damage could amount to between £12 billion and £16 billion. The Government have set up the Thames estuary 2100 project, which is being run by the Environment Agency, to examine the matter. Some are worried whether the deadlines for that project will slip, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will reassure us in his winding-up speech that everything is on schedule and that the work is being done. Once the project has identified what must be done, the funding situation must be clarified in order to get it done.
	The Minister mentioned the 2012 Olympics, which will draw a great deal of investment into that area of London.
	On water resources, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has produced an excellent little booklet on the Thames Gateway, has raised the issue of fresh water. If hundreds of thousands of homes are built in that part of London, then the issue of water resources must be addressed.
	On housing quality, the CPRE is keen on high urban design quality and has suggested the introduction of quality thresholds. Some of the architectural design in parts of east London leaves a little to be desired, although that area of London also contains some fine civic buildings. New buildings in the area over the next 20 to 30 years must be of the highest quality—the quality of development should be good in addition to the quantity.
	I welcome the Minister's comments about affordable housing. I agree that it is important for people to buy their own homes, but many people do not have that opportunity, so we must continue to provide a decent amount of affordable housing.
	London is a world-class city. The east of London contains a lot of under-used resources, and provided that we make sensible provision for flood prevention and that Departments and local authorities work together to provide the services and facilities to support that development, we can provide decent homes for hundreds and thousands of people, which will provide growth and generate a great deal of wealth.
	There is a lot to commend the development of the Thames Gateway, but certain questions remain, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not only sweep up my concerns, but answer my hon. Friends' questions. I have participated in debates like this in which few hon. Members were present, so I am glad to see so many hon. Members participating today. I shall not prolong my speech, because I understand that another hon. Member wants to make a maiden speech.

Natascha Engel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Thames Gateway. Before anyone else tells me, I know that the Thames does not run through North-East Derbyshire.
	I want to pick up on the theme of the Thames Gateway as a regeneration project. What is happening in North-East Derbyshire defines regeneration. Harry Barnes, the MP for the past 18 years, spent much of his time putting in the foundations for that regeneration and overseeing many historic changes. Harry had to deal with the devastating consequences of mass pit closures and the resulting unemployment, but he made sure that North-East Derbyshire got its share of compensation and clean-up money. Right to the end, only weeks before his retirement, Harry got millions of pounds from this Labour Government to clean up the environmental mess left by the Avenue coking works in Wingerworth.
	Regeneration is about change—change for the better—but it is also about building on what we have. North-East Derbyshire used to be dominated by mining and steel, and we still have a working pit in Eckington, but both industries are in decline nationally and locally. Although many of the mines are closed today, it is brilliant to see that the community spirit that bound people together in the villages is alive and kicking. That spirit has survived and adapted to our new industrial landscape, and it is the spirit of socialism. Without socialism, regenerating our communities and helping those who live in them to develop and grow would not be possible—it is the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them.
	Speaking of neighbours, I thank all the Labour Members in Derbyshire, who have made me so welcome. I was introduced to the Derbyshire Labour MPs when I was on maternity leave, and they brought me on a campaign to prevent the closure of medical assessment centres in Chesterfield and Derby. Yesterday, it was announced that both centres will stay open. That was achieved only by the collective strength of the Derbyshire Labour MPs working together with a national Labour Government. This is, to me, the spirit of trade unionism.
	True socialism and trade unionism, the very roots of the Labour movement and the essence of regeneration, are about recognising that an individual finds dignity in work, self-esteem in skills and a sense of civic pride in community engagement. From the ashes of coal dust and the coking plants, we have grown higher-tech, higher-skilled and more highly paid jobs.
	The Markham employment zone at junction 29A, which is more commonly known in our part of the world as Skinner's junction, gives us a unique opportunity to look a decade ahead.—[Interruption.] It is called Skinner's junction. We can identify the skills that are needed, train local people to do a job of work and let them apply their new skills. The pits, the coking plants and the steel works have also blighted much of our countryside. That project means that we are developing an expertise in cleaning up the environmental mess that we created. Skinner's junction is employing hundreds in the construction industry today, and it will provide anything up to 5,000 jobs in the future. In the same way as London and the south-east of England have embraced the Thames Gateway, we must grab that opportunity with both hands.
	As MPs, our challenge is to make sure that good ideas and projects are supported by good public policy. The biggest problem with national legislation is that there is no one size that fits all—all people are different and no two circumstances are the same, which is why our Labour Government's policy on localism is so exciting. Localism is about breaking the culture of centralism and devolving power and resources to communities. In North-East Derbyshire, there is a fantastic example of how that works in practice.
	The Staveley neighbourhood management project was set up about three years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister to address the problems of declining industries. Community-level services are co-ordinated and tailored to suit the needs of the community. The project covers everything from health, education and housing to transport, crime and community safety—just about every aspect of national government—but they are Staveley's policies matched to the needs of the people of Staveley.
	Another village, Grassmoor, recently built a brand new community centre. It is heavily used, but not by the younger people who live there. The centre therefore organised a day of activities to attract young people in and to find out what they wanted. Apart from learning some fencing, archery and ox-boxing—I still do not know what that is—I spoke to a lot of the 12 and 13-year-olds about what they would normally be doing on a Sunday afternoon. They all said that they would be watching telly, hanging around or doing "whatever"; none of them would have been charging around, full of energy and enthusiasm and learning new things. This is what national taxpayers' money should be supporting. Who knows, one of these kids could take up fencing and end up representing us all at the 2012 Olympics.
	As politicians, we must have the ability to look ahead not just for years but for generations. Whether it is building a Sure Start centre in North Wingfield, a brand new primary school in Clay Cross, or a secondary school in Dronfield, we have to look at what we will leave behind. We must make the best use of what we are already lucky enough to have, however big or small. At the moment, I feel like the luckiest person alive. I am doing a job that I love and the possibilities seem endless.
	We have an industrial culture and manufacturing skills that are second to none. I want us to continue that tradition in North-East Derbyshire by building a university for manufacturing to harness and pass on those skills to future generations. I want to see true regeneration whereby we equip the young people of today with enough confidence and know-how to make decisions about the future. If younger people are to take the lead in rejuvenating our communities, it is down to us to give them the skills to do it, and we must respect their decisions if we want to be respected in turn.
	Harry Barnes is a sincere and respectful man, and as a result he earned a mountain of respect in his 18 years as MP for North-East Derbyshire. I have only been an MP for a few months, but I have already made my own personal contribution to regenerating North-East Derbyshire—I had a baby a couple of weeks after the general election. It seems that a lot of other MPs on both sides of the House have done the same. It is good to have plenty of new parents here. We need a more representative mixture of parliamentarians. It gives us a stronger focus on life outside this Chamber and keeps us closer to the real-life experiences of many of our constituents. It might keep us up at night, but most importantly it will keep our feet on the ground.
	I am really pleased to be making my maiden speech during a debate led by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for regeneration. She is living proof that it is possible to combine good parenthood with the work of an MP. On top of that, she has always taken time to give me good practical advice. In fact, it was she who told me that none of us can get too self-important when we are walking around with baby sick on our shoulders.
	I hope that all the kind voters of North-East Derbyshire who put me here and everyone in Westminster—all my hon. Friends and all the staff who work here—will make sure that I never get too self-important and help me to do the job that I was put here to do—to represent everyone in North-East Derbyshire to the very best of my ability.

Sarah Teather: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel), who, as I am sure the whole House will agree, made an articulate, passionate and very human speech. It was nice to hear. Often, this House can be tremendously pompous, so it was a great relief to hear somebody speak in a human way about her life, passions and experience, and what brought her into politics. I suspect that as a passionate Liberal rather than a passionate socialist I will often disagree with the hon. Lady, but I look forward to doing so often. I am certain that she will make an enormous contribution to this House. I congratulate her on a superb speech that has set the tone for the debate, which I am sure I shall now let down.
	To echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) I hope that the comments of Liberal Democrat Members will be taken in a constructive manner. We, too, think that the Thames Gateway offers a tremendous opportunity. We disagree on some of the details, but I hope that the Minister will take my comments in the helpful spirit in which they are intended.
	In her usual impressive way, the Minister went through the complexities of the project. It is very complex indeed. We are wholly signed up to the view that there is a need for many more homes in the south-east, but we do not agree that the only way to deal with the housing crisis is through shared equity schemes and the abolition of stamp duty. Such schemes may play a part, but we passionately believe that there is a great need for far more housing in the area. We do not agree that all that housing needs to be provided through brand new homes—there are other opportunities of which the Government need to make more use. We believe that the priority for any development must be to do with sustainability, jobs and transport—issues that the Minister touched on—as well as environmental considerations, which are key. Many of these developments will be on flood plains, but also, ironically, in areas that suffer from a shortage of water resources. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson), who is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would like particularly to cover environmental considerations such as flooding, drainage, building regulations and transport issues, so I will leave the detail of those to him in the hope that he has that opportunity to speak.
	We need to recognise that although the Thames Gateway offers something that London lacks—the space that we need—it is not a blank canvas. About 2 million people already live there, many in areas that are among the most deprived in the country. We must ensure that the benefits of the project are felt not only by families moving into the area but by those who already live there. It is vital that, unlike the docklands developments in the 1980s, local people are fully involved all the way through and have their views recognised and put into the proposals.
	Let me deal with the need for more homes, which is controversial in this House. We do need more homes because hundreds of thousands of people across the south-east cannot afford a decent place to live. It is not just about buying property—there is a desperate need for social rented accommodation. I represent an area in north-west London where the housing crisis is critical. Every week in my surgery I meet people who have been on a housing waiting list for 10 or 15 years, living in appalling overcrowding. That situation is replicated across the whole of the south-east. The implications for people's lives are enormous and devastating.
	It is easy to talk about the statistics, but too often we forget what they mean for families who live in such appalling conditions. I meet people who have a family member with TB, which is then passed on across the whole family. We would not expect to find that in the century in which we live, yet it is happening all across the south-east, and at a frightening level in my constituency. People living in temporary accommodation get moved on, lose contact with their GP and are unable to keep up with their drugs, so the TB develops resistance. We do not expect that level of poverty, but it is what we are dealing with. That is why we need so many more homes. Record numbers of people are in temporary accommodation—Shelter estimates that there are 73,000 across London. Many key workers, as well as young professionals with families, are priced out of the market.
	The proposed scale of development is phenomenal, but I do not agree that it should be all about new homes. There are 750,000 empty homes in the UK, including almost 60,000 in the eastern region, about 90,000 in London and 80,000 in the south-east—a total of about 280,000 empty homes in the areas that we are discussing. In addition, about 1 million residential units could be created in empty commercial space above shops—at least 75,000 in London alone. The Government have introduced the empty homes and living over the shop initiatives and they give tax breaks for owners who put flats above shops, but much more could be done. The Government recently closed their consultation on the empty property management orders. I urge them to produce their report on that consultation, use it and introduce secondary legislation as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) argued strongly for that during the passage of the Housing Bill and we are keen for the initiative to be implemented.
	We also believe that there is an option of equalising VAT on renovation and new build and we urge the Government to consider that. The Treasury has considered introducing VAT on greenfield development, but that has been postulated more as a method of getting money for infrastructure development than of providing a tax break for renovations and conversion. I would be interested to know whether any discussions had taken place about those proposals.
	Localising business rates and giving councils the ability to provide incentives for businesses to come to an area would help to regenerate business and the economy. I was therefore disappointed that the Government postponed the Lyons review, and I would welcome assurances that they are still considering the idea. Since 1997, they have said that they would consider it, and I should like to know whether the Minister remains keen on it.
	The demographics of the population should be clearly understood when new homes are built. We have an ageing population, but also many more single people living alone. We also have a high proportion of ethnic minority communities who may require large properties because they live in extended families. That is a problem in my constituency, where the shortage of larger properties especially disadvantages members of Asian communities who wish to live together. In the winding-up speech, will the Minister detail the sort of demographic mapping that the Government have undertaken and what further work they plan?
	In a response to an intervention, the Minister said that the Government recognised the great need for affordable housing. Have they set a target for that in the Thames Gateway development? What would be the breakdown between affordable housing and the social rented sector? As other hon. Members have said, that is a key priority for the area. In a deprived community, the social rented sector is often squeezed out in favour of affordable housing initiatives. Although the latter are important, they leave many people in a position that is no better than their previous circumstances.
	The Government have a national target of 60 per cent. for new development on brownfield sites, but the Thames Gateway development has exceeded it so far. That is welcome. Is there a presumption that such developments should take place on brownfield sites? I hope that that question will be answered later.
	The Government are publishing new planning guidance this autumn setting out what regional density should be. They said that the density in the Thames Gateway should be 40 dwellings per hectare, which means, given the existing brownfield site, that almost all that housing could be built on brownfield, with extra capacity. Perhaps more could be said about that later.
	The key point is to ensure that the development is carried out with great care. Other developments have not always been as successful as we hoped. New towns are the only analogy to the project when we look back to try to learn from previous mistakes. Many of the English new towns constitute some of the most deprived areas in local authority terms. All but two are more deprived than the counties in which they reside and many have never grown as planned. For example, Skelmersdale was supposed to have a population of 80,000, but never made it beyond 40,000. Corby was planned for 100,000 people, but has never grown beyond 50,000. We need to examine what stopped that growth.
	A key factor is the way in which we develop the plan. We have argued that developments should be based around town centres and not simply be urban sprawl, to ensure that the transport links are as efficient as possible. I appreciate that the 14 growth zones have been proposed, but to what extent is the development happening in them? What is being done to ensure that it is situated around key towns and clear town centres?
	The Thames Gateway has challenges but also benefits. The Minister mentioned the wonderful opportunity that the Olympics provides. She also referred to the Eurostar terminal. However, much of the brownfield land is contaminated and expensive to redevelop. The Government have introduced a contaminated land tax credit. That is an interesting idea and I would like to know whether the Government will publish any figures or feedback on how well it is working and say whether it has borne fruit or made no impact. I should be interested to hear about that in the winding-up speech, or perhaps the Government could place some of that information in the Library.
	As other hon. Members have said, Crossrail is a vital part of the redevelopment. The Crossrail Bill is progressing slowly through Parliament. Second Reading was on 18 July, but the measure needs to go to a Special Select Committee, yet no date has been set for that. What is being done to ensure that it gets through Parliament as quickly as possible so that the development can happen?
	Conservative Members made interventions about social infrastructure. It will be tremendously expensive. Kent says that it alone will need £1.05 billion by 2021 to provide transport, schools, health and community facilities and to make the growth sustainable. In March 2005, the Government announced approximately £2 billion for the next five years. However, the management consultants Hornagold and Hills reported in January 2005 that the Thames Gateway will need 300 primary schools, 70 secondary schools, two universities, 100 playgrounds, 70 water-pumping stations, 80 sewage treatment works, 4,000 police officers, 10 hospitals, 180 GP surgeries, 150 recycling sites and 50 additional railway stations. That is quite a shopping list of requirements. Do the Government propose to commit to funding them? If so, how? Are they reserving land now, while it is cheaper because it is undeveloped, for those purposes before land prices increase?
	The Government have hinted at a variety of initiatives that they may use to fund the infrastructure. I have already mentioned VAT on greenfield development. A planning gains supplement, planning tariffs and a development land tax have been mooted. When are the Government likely to introduce proposals so that they can be discussed, debated and scrutinised in the House? What work is being done to ensure that any proposals for consultation are not likely to damage land supply, which has been a problem when such schemes have been introduced previously?
	I want to deal with some of the other issues to do with ensuring that communities benefit. Six of the London boroughs in the Thames Gateway area have long housing waiting lists. Their combined housing waiting list is approximately 51,000 households. All waiting lists in London are rapidly getting longer. Many people live in poor quality housing. What assurances can the Government give that people in such circumstances will benefit in 2016 from the proposed development?
	The Learning and Skills Council has said that 112,000 of the 194,000 new jobs to be created in the area by 2016 will need applicants with A-level or degree-level qualifications. However, the number of people in higher education in the area is 20 per cent. below the national average. The Minister spoke about the expansion of the three universities, but what work is being done to encourage those people into higher and, especially, further education? My constituency includes one of the main centres of excellence for construction courses. It has found that the Government's initiatives to get people into level 2 and access courses in further education are causing a squeeze on the expensive construction courses and making it difficult to meet the required demand. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in the winding-up speech.
	We are committed to the project. We have some specific concerns, which I have tried to detail, but the project is exciting and it is important to work together in a cross-party way to ensure that it works and is a lasting monument to regeneration in the area.

Howard Stoate: It is expected that by 2010 there will be an influx of 1 million people into the south-east, attracted by the prosperity of the region. The projected construction of 120,000 new houses in the Thames Gateway by 2016, outlined in the sustainable communities plan, is part of an attempt to meet that challenge. The plan also recognises, however, that if the development is to be sustainable, the extra houses must be balanced by the creation of new jobs in the Gateway, primarily to cater for the new residents but also to combat social exclusion and low employment in existing communities. There are currently 1.5 million people living in the Thames Gateway, but only 500,000 jobs.
	In his evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee during its inquiry into sustainable housing, Sir John Egan, the Prime Minister's adviser on the Thames Gateway, said that the purpose of development in the Thames Gateway is to provide high-quality housing for the most highly skilled people, who are attracted to London as one of the most successful cities in the world. He said that the purpose of development in the Gateway and the rest of the south-east should be to allow anyone to live in any part of the region and commute to any part of London.
	That statement wholly contradicts the Government's stated policy and objectives in the sustainable communities plan. The Government need to clarify their intentions with regard to housing growth in the Thames Gateway. Is their primary aim to service the needs of London or to assist the regeneration of the Gateway and combat existing social exclusion? Or is it both? How do the Government intend to reconcile those two conflicting objectives? I should welcome clarification in the winding-up speech.
	Dartford is no stranger to development and change. The gradual withdrawal of heavy industry has left many regeneration areas that are gradually being transformed into new communities. That is making the area a more pleasant place in which to live and work. Only yesterday, I visited a company in my constituency called J. Clubb Ltd. to celebrate the 75th anniversary of its existence in Dartford. The company was founded by Jimmy Clubb senior in 1930 and it employs 70 people. It provides aggregates, concrete and services to the construction industry and has been involved in almost every regeneration project in Dartford since 1930. Its new volumetric mixing vehicle has just become the first of its kind in Europe to be given British Standards Institution accreditation.
	However, Dartford is also no stranger to controversy. At the heart of an ambitious plan to regenerate the town centre is a proposed Tesco development. I am told that if the development goes ahead, the store will be the second largest Tesco in the country. The development would also include more than 500 new dwellings and would result in the compulsory purchase of some 50 freeholds. More controversially, it would mean a road through the central park in Dartford.
	I am very disappointed at the lack of consultation by both Tesco and the developer and the failure to engage with local people and local stakeholders. This is a project of enormous strategic importance to the Thames Gateway area. There are huge local concerns, especially about the road. I presented the council with a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures from people opposing the road. I also held my own referendum in Dartford. Of those who responded, 93 per cent. were against the road and only 6 per cent. in favour. Adjudication was independent. I am disappointed that a company of that size has not sought to engage with local people. The only way that we can enable existing communities to live in harmony with big new regeneration projects is to ensure that the existing communities are helped to understand the proposals at every step of the way and are given a chance to have their say. I am very pleased that my colleagues in the Department have agreed to call in the project for an inquiry, because that shows that they have understood local concerns. A planning inquiry will start shortly and it will be interesting to see how it goes.
	There is no doubt that regeneration, economic investment and new housing are needed in the Thames Gateway area. I believe, however, that the only way to ensure that housing growth in the area is truly sustainable is to provide a direct link between housing and employment growth. When the first new towns were being planned and built in the south-east after the second world war, to cater for the overspill from London and other cities in the region, every effort was made to match jobs with housing. Indeed, in some cases it was impossible to secure a house in a new town without an offer of employment with a company or service in the area.
	The system had inherent flaws and I certainly do not advocate a return to it, but we need to find a way of ensuring that economic growth keeps pace with housing growth. In my constituency, for example, there is a real danger that employment growth will soon begin to lag behind housing growth. The development of more than 1,000 homes in north Dartford is beginning to get under way, while the planned development of between 6,000 and 7,000 homes in Eastern Quarry recently received outline planning permission from the borough council. However, progress in the creation of jobs around the new international station at Ebbsfleet has been much slower.
	The potential to create more than 20,000 jobs exists, but as yet few substantive expressions of interest have been forthcoming from either the public or the private sector. A commitment by the Government to a major public sector relocation to Ebbsfleet would undoubtedly help to stimulate greater interest from other potential employers.
	I believe that until concrete proposals for job creation at Ebbsfleet are on the table, housing developers in the area and on major strategic sites surrounding it should proceed with caution. A substantial proportion of Dartford's labour force—currently 38 per cent.—commute to London, and I am anxious to ensure that that percentage does not increase further. Not only would such an increase place further unnecessary pressure on our already overstretched public transport infrastructure, but the viability of the new communities would be undermined if they became, in effect, no more than dormitory villages.
	I support the principle of redevelopment in the Thames Gateway area and in Thameside in particular, but development on such a scale must be tempered with economic growth. The proposed developments represent a 20 per cent. increase in Dartford's housing stock. If that happens too quickly, it will unbalance the job market and result in negative rather than positive outcomes.
	I would like the Government to consider either setting up an agency or charging an existing agency with responsibility for examining the viability of new housing development in the Thames Gateway from an economic and employment perspective. An agency with that responsibility, perhaps an executive arm of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Department of Trade and Industry, would complement the work of executive agencies such as the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, which are charged with examining the impact of new development of the trunk road network and the environment respectively. If such an agency took the view that a development was unsustainable from an employment perspective, it should have power to issue a holding notice delaying development until its concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
	What about infrastructural improvement in existing communities? Since the publication of RPG9a in 1994, when Dartford was first identified as a major development area in the Thames Gateway, successive administrations at Dartford borough council have sought to underline their commitment to ensuring that Dartford's existing communities, particularly those with high levels of deprivation such as Swanscombe, gain from the new investment being channelled into the borough.
	In January 2003, shortly before the launch of the Government's communities plan—which reaffirmed Dartford's status as a key growth area—the Kent Thameside local strategic partnership made Swanscombe, Temple Hill, Tree Estate and Alamein Gardens priority communities in view of the "particular difficulties and challenges" that the communities faced. It resolved that it would
	"endeavour to focus resources on the areas".
	A survey of residents' views on the impact of regeneration on the area revealed widespread apprehension about the impact on Swanscombe in particular. Many residents expressed concern about the affordability of the new housing and the impact of new development on existing house values, while others referred to the disparity between the quality of existing homes and that of new homes in the new communities. That led the survey's authors to conclude that
	"the general lack of satisfaction with the area",
	combined with
	"a sense of lack of control and influence over both the new developments and mainstream services"
	could
	"foster division between the new and old communities."
	As a result of those concerns, a Swanscombe and Greenhithe master plan has been drawn up, funded by English Partnerships and commissioned by the South-East England Development Agency. Its aim is to provide a blueprint for future development and investment in the area. It considers how the physical fabric and the character of the community can be enhanced and tries to identify ways in which Swanscombe can be physically integrated into the new communities surrounding the village. The plan has not been costed, but its authors make it clear that
	"although the masterplan provides a comprehensive vision, it has to be recognised that delivery will defend on funding availability. A key objective must be to maximise major public and private sector funding to secure regeneration initiatives."
	As the master plan's own survey of possible funding opportunities shows, however, there are very few agencies with either the resources or the commitment to ensure that the plan's objectives are even partly met. The ODPM has raised £1 million for
	"community facilities and environmental improvements"
	in Swanscombe, which has already been allocated to existing projects. Apart from the ODPM, few of the Kent Thameside regeneration partners have the wherewithal to support the delivery of the master plan. SEEDA and English Partnerships have considerable resources at their disposal, but have made it clear that their priorities lie with the delivery of new development in Kent Thameside. The only projects in the area that they are likely to fund are those that can be shown to deliver clear benefits to new as well as existing developments.
	Similarly, although the Housing Corporation could help social landlords to provide affordable housing in Swanscombe, and support schemes aimed at the purchase and refurbishment of empty properties, it is likely that the vast majority of its resources will be used to fund affordable housing on the new development sites. Extra capital funding from Dartford borough council is also unlikely to be forthcoming. The council has been heavily committed in the area over the past year, and has tied up much of its capital in other projects to regenerate other parts of the borough.
	Swanscombe will continue to benefit from EU Urban II funding until 2008, but Urban II bids require match funding from other agencies and must adhere to its strict funding criteria. Funding bids to improve public buildings and green space and to promote job creation are permissible, but bids to improve private housing are not. The other drawback with the Urban II project is that the total funding amounts to only £7.4 million over six years and is meant to be available to Greenhithe, Northfleet and Gravesend, as well as Swanscombe.
	The only other funding option available to the area are the section 106 agreements signed between the borough council and Land Securities, the company which is developing the Eastern Quarry, Ebbsfleet and the Swanscombe peninsula. The borough council has already concluded that this represents its best chance of securing
	"both investment in Swanscombe's private sector stock and ensuring affordability of new and existing properties for sale".
	The master plan also includes a large section that considers how section 106 resources from surrounding developments can best be used to meet the area's needs.
	It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that section 106 agreements alone will not provide extra resources for the area on the scale that the borough council and others believe is necessary. Unless extra resources can be made available, there is a real danger that our existing communities will not benefit fully from the regeneration opportunities in the area.
	I want briefly to examine the environmental impact of development. Given that the Government have set a target of reducing carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent. of their 1990 levels by 2010, it is disappointing that they have chosen merely to encourage developers in the Thames Gateway to adhere to their sustainable buildings code, rather than getting them to set actual carbon reduction targets. Instead, it has been left to local authorities and regional development agencies to set their own environmental development standards. SEEDA, for example, insists that all its funded projects comply with the EcoHomes "excellent" standard. English Partnerships has set an EcoHomes standard of "very good", although it has required some projects to meet the higher standard. The standard set by local authorities, on the other hand, varies from "excellent" to no EcoHomes standard requirement at all. Dartford borough council recently set an EcoHomes target of "good" in its 2004 housing strategy. There is considerable lack of clarity on this issue and the Government need to deal with the question of targets by giving developers a clear lead on what they expect to see in local areas.
	The piecemeal approach to sustainable design and construction in the Thames Gateway has meant that developers have not given sustainable design the priority that it deserves. There are some exceptional examples of high quality sustainable design, such as the Greenwich millennium village, where the use of combined heat and power plants and a high standard of home insulation has resulted in a 65 per cent. reduction in primary energy consumption. So things can be done, but we need great commitment by the Government to ensure that such developments are replicated across the region.
	The other critical issue for Dartford is water supply. At present, there is a surplus of water, but the situation could easily change. As the Environment Agency stated in "State of the Environment 2004 in South East England",
	"the south-east consumes more water per person than any other region, but receives one of the lowest amounts of rainfall. A huge increase in water demand is expected as a consequence of new housing development in the south-east."
	Thames Water, which supplies Dartford, forecasts that by 2029 baseline demand in the region will have reached 2,800 million litres a day—an increase of more than 400 million litres on today's figures. If something is not done to ensure that the new developments are sustainable in terms of water usage, there could be considerable problems in the medium to long term. The targets that Thames Water would like to set might be difficult to reach, but unless the Government give it and developers a steer on the anticipated level of water supply and consumption the situation will be difficult to resolve.
	What we really need to do is to ensure that a thorough reassessment takes place from an environmental perspective of Kent Thameside's housing growth plans. The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership has suggested that a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of new housing development on, for example, flood risk in the area be carried out. This is a welcome proposal—it should have been made some years ago—but there is a good case for expanding the remit and looking at the proposed development in Kent Thameside from a broader environmental perspective, assessing its impact on water resources, climate, biodiversity, air quality and so on. Only then will we really be able to ensure that the very exciting and welcome development in Thames Gateway is genuinely sustainable in the future.

David Evennett: I am very pleased that we are having this debate today on a subject of considerable interest to my constituents. I intend to raise some issues that are causing concern in my area and to make some general points, but in principle I want to maintain the constructive nature of this debate.
	I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel) on her excellent maiden speech. She spoke with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) knows that I regularly offer praise when a good speech is made. The hon. Lady spoke with great passion, confidence and humour about her constituency and her political convictions and views. We warmly congratulate her on her contribution and look forward to many more in the coming months and years.
	It is also good to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who is my constituency neighbour. We have many constituency issues in common, and we work together closely for the benefit of both our constituencies and boroughs.
	I speak not only as someone who represents a constituency that is on the Gateway's periphery and partly involved in it, but as a borough of Bexley resident, so I have a great interest in the issue from many points of view. The Minister provided a very good wish list, made an interesting speech and gave some particularly important examples of what the project hopes to achieve. Contrary to one or two of the political comments that she made, the Opposition welcome in principle the Thames Gateway development and support the vast majority of the attempts to regenerate that part of the river, but we must examine a wide variety of the issues that she raised, such as value for money, the speed and quality of development and the associated cost. This project presents us with a great opportunity, and Conservative Members are looking to take it and to participate to the full.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who made a very interesting and reasonable speech that highlighted the broad cross-party agreement on development of the Thames Gateway. Importantly, he pointed out that we must avoid using jargon. One or two of the Minister's points involved the use of jargon such as "regional sub-development". What we are really talking about is communities and people, and a region that needs investment and development. I really do not like the use of such jargon. What we should be talking about is how to improve an area that has suffered from underinvestment.
	Only part of my constituency falls within the Gateway development, but the consequences will be felt across my borough and in neighbouring boroughs. The project has been in existence for some time—it used to be called the east Thames corridor—and when I was formerly a Member of the House I was a great supporter of such reinvestment. There is much potential for revival and regeneration. Other London areas have enjoyed such regeneration, but we to the east of the region were unfortunately unable to make a case for such development. We now have that opportunity, and we must not lose it.
	Historically, my borough of Bexley has had a lot of heavy industry. It has also suffered from structural unemployment, and still does in parts. Some of those industries have produced pollution, and there has been a lack of opportunity in parts of the riverside, so the plan to create new jobs, industries and homes, and a cleaner environment and a better riverside for Bexley is good news. Large sums are going to be spent, and we need to ask what they will be spent on and what the consequences will be of such investment for our part of the Gateway.
	There are, however, real concerns. In some ways, those of us who are south of the river feel that there are two areas: the north Thames Gateway, and the south. Each area has different issues and problems, and I urge the Minister to take that point on board. We talk about one region, but the river creates two different regions, with many and varied consequences. We should ensure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) laughs; we look forward to hearing his contribution later. We are looking at two different areas with somewhat different problems.
	Historically, Bexley has had poor air quality, partly due to wind direction and partly due to geography, traffic and the polluting industries that I mentioned. We look forward to investment in new, clean industries and improved air quality. As the Minister said, better quality of life is not just about jobs, but about improved health and living conditions.
	Some local issues in Bexley are a matter of concern, as some developments may not be in line with the cleaner air and prospects for better health that people want. One such development is the waste to energy incinerator. If it goes ahead, it will represent a threat to our area. We are concerned about the additional pollution that may result from it—I understand that the Minister cannot comment because the matter is subject to a public inquiry—and it has been a matter of concern for the last decade. The development of an enormous incinerator in Belvedere will have consequences in my borough and for the Thames Gateway development. Traffic will increase, in addition to the consequences of whatever pollutants emerge from the incinerator.
	There is a huge amount of local opposition to the incinerator, which I wholly support. Battles over the last decade have resulted in meetings, campaigns and public inquiries. At the moment, we await the result of the latest public inquiry and we hope that the inspector will reject the plan to build the incinerator. As I say, there will be significant consequences if we do not succeed in getting good, clean industries into the area. If we go back to having polluting industries, the consequences for future homes and future development will be impaired. We certainly do not want that.
	We are also concerned about transport in the area south of the river. Transport in south-east London and north-west Kent is poor—indeed, it is woefully inadequate. We do not have a docklands light railway in my constituency or borough; we have no tube and we do not have a first-class rail service; and we will not receive the benefits of Crossrail. That is why I say that the Thames Gateway is not really one but two regions.
	We welcome the Olympics coming to London in 2012, which will bring investment into the Thames Gateway. My question to the Minister, however, is what will be the investment benefits of our Olympic success for Bexley? We know that London will have to pay more in council tax, so people in my constituency will have to pay more.
	Many local people are concerned that the benefits to the borough will be little or nothing. We will all support our teams and enjoy the event when it comes, but it will be courtesy of a high price. People fear that Bexley might become a car park for people attending Olympic events or a cut-through for the extra traffic coming through Bexley to attend events either across the river or in central and west London. That demonstrates the real local concern about transport and transport infrastructure that will benefit the part of the Thames Gateway south of the river.
	The Thames Gateway bridge is another important issue that is subject to a public inquiry. Quite rightly, the Minister cannot comment, but I want to put on record the fact that local Bexley residents, particularly in the north of the borough, are extremely concerned about it. The public inquiry is based at Charlton football ground and we have had two evening sessions in Bexleyheath at which local people raised real concerns about the consequences of the bridge going ahead. The proposal is to use the bridge to link Thamesmead with Newham.
	We hear from Transport for London and the Mayor that the bridge is absolutely vital for the success of the Thames Gateway. Transport for London says that it is essential, the Mayor is in favour and various experts on regeneration are strongly in favour. Without a bridge, they claim, they will not receive any of the benefits, but I question that very strongly. My political hero is Harold Macmillan, who often used to say that when experts agree they are invariably wrong. All the experts agree about the bridge, and I believe that they could well be wrong.

Clive Efford: Am I correct in recalling that the hon. Gentleman supported the former east London river crossing? He wants to make a strong case against the bridge, which I have consistently opposed, so will he give the House his reasons for changing his mind?

David Evennett: I have changed my mind, but the Thames Gateway bridge is quite a different prospect from the east London river crossing, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, although he was not a Member when it was proposed. The road network structure was quite different. Many of us were looking to a cut and cover under Oxley wood, but times move on. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of his views have changed. We now know that traffic has increased substantially and that we have not secured the rail improvements that we were promised by the hon. Gentleman and his party. We have heard at recent elections that things are going to improve, but they have not. The proposed bridge is quite a different prospect and time has moved on. This is a different project at a different time with different consequences.
	On this proposal, many Conservative Members—we all know that we are having a leadership election today —are looking forward, not backwards. Unfortunately, Labour Members always want to look back, as we heard at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, and trot out the same details about the past. We are looking forward and working together for the benefit of people in the area.
	The quality of life issue is paramount for people living in Bexley. A six-lane freeway taking huge amounts of traffic through our borough from the A2 and the A20 will cause an environmental nightmare: pollution, noise, nuisance, safety risks and health issues. Great problems will be created in our borough with no benefits to local people. Regrettably, Bexley and Greenwich already have very congested roads. It was Greenwich council that approved plans for the bridge, but it does not affect that area in the same way as it affects Bexley. If the bridge is built, traffic will come through Bexley and there will be gridlock on our local roads. Clearly, the Thames Gateway project must deal with many problems relating to transport and traffic.
	I pay tribute to some of the local people who are campaigning against the Thames Gateway bridge. Jacqui and Steve Wise have campaigned hard, as have Terry Grant and the St. Michael's residents association and Councillor Clement, leader of the Conservative group. They all support the development of the Thames Gateway as a regional regeneration project, but only if it will bring benefits to the whole area. We believe that, if the bridge goes ahead, considerable disadvantages for our local area will result.
	We need more jobs, but how many new jobs will the Thames Gateway redevelopment project create south of the river? That question must be addressed. Many new jobs will be created in the north—we know that house prices are going up in Stratford on account of the Olympics and everyone is looking to invest there—but what about south of the river?
	There are tremendous opportunities for development in the area. They are long overdue, and have bipartisan support. However, the consequences for south London, and for Bexley in particular, have not yet been addressed. I urge the Minister to do so.

Andrew MacKinlay: I begin by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel), who made a cogent, comprehensive, confident and passionate maiden speech, which I enjoyed enormously. She is not in her place just now, but I look forward to hearing her speak again, and to her underlining her commitment to our common faith—socialism.
	Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who is also Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I represent the area covered by the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation. The borough of Thurrock has the longest river frontage of all the riparian local authorities along the Thames. It has the last large working part of the port of London, and is already a major growth area. Rightly, the Government set up a development corporation exclusively for Thurrock. I welcome that good initiative, subject to one or two points of clarification and qualification that I shall raise a little later.
	I represent the only part of the Thames Gateway with a development corporation that is in the Government's eastern region. I think that the Government may have to reconsider that. With the best will in the world, I cannot accept that Thurrock has any logical relationship with the—albeit important—cities of Cambridgeshire and Norwich. It is inextricably part and parcel of the wider London conurbation: London's motorway goes through the borough and, as I said earlier, we share a river with the capital. My constituents commute to London. They are often Londoners who moved east, who benefited from the innovative planning of Labour pioneers in the previous century. I am thinking of the Labour dockers who ran the Tilbury urban district council, and the Labour-run London county council of the 1920s and 1930s, which built so many of the local houses.
	I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, who also represents the area. I get on extremely well with her, and do not want to speak for her or inflict guilt on her by association. However, I am sure that she would sign up to the broad thrust of my remarks. I welcome the establishment of the local development corporation, but a number of concerns have been raised by various well regarded organisations.
	For example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has drawn attention to some anxieties about flooding. As legislators, we have to strike a balance: we do not want to scare people, but we are obliged to secure a reassurance from the Government that flooding will not be a problem months or years down the road. If that were to happen, people might ask what their public representatives had been doing. The burden is on the Government to assure us that the flood defences are sound, and that the effect of any new or additional residential or commercial development in my area—or elsewhere along the river—has been taken fully into account.
	Other hon. Members have alluded to the Gateway's environmental impact. A number of organisations—including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—constantly remind us of our responsibilities under the directives governing birds and habitats. They point to the critically important role played by the Thames flood plain and marshes in respect of bird migration, among other things. Such matters are very important, to this and future generations.
	I am very sensitive about environmental matters. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) raised legitimate questions about how the waste produced in his constituency would be got rid of. The same question bothers me deeply, as my area suffered exploitation throughout the 20th century at the hands of two very unwelcome industries—mineral and gravel extraction, and landfill. From the Terrace of the House, hon. Members can see barges heading for Thurrock, carrying London's waste to my constituency.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure me about the destination of human and household waste resulting from growth to the east of London. Where will it go? If I have anything to do with it, it certainly is not coming to my patch. It is terrible that the landfill industry should continue to grow, and the problem of waste resulting from increased development is a pressing one.
	The Minister who will reply to the debate is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, I asked a question about Thurrock and the Thames Gateway, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Today's debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, and I am genuinely confused: which Minister has responsibility for the Thurrock development corporation area? There is no clarity at the moment. In my area, there is some disappointment that the corporation should have been so slow to begin its work. Therefore I need to know which Minister I must turn to so as to ensure that action is taken in the future.
	Although there has been significant and welcome growth in the Thurrock area in the past decade, it has been unplanned. As many hon. Members accept, residential development there is very necessary, but it is also important that there be commensurate growth in the local infrastructure. I am talking about roads and other forms of transport and communication, as well as the essential public services that must be delivered. We desperately need co-ordinated planning to ensure that there are enough hospitals, GPs and police to match the growth in residential and commercial development.
	We must also make sure that schools with the appropriate capacity are built in the right places. One reason for my enthusiasm for the urban development corporation is that I believe that it can provide the planning that is so urgently needed. The lack of co-ordination in Thurrock to date means that schools are often in the wrong place. That causes parents a great deal of legitimate disappointment and frustration when they cannot get their children into schools near their homes.
	It is claimed that we have joined-up Government in this country. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Health that any reorganisation of the police command units or of the primary care trusts should maintain coterminosity with Thurrock borough council and the development corporation. If there is any dilution of that, if the police command unit that currently covers Thurrock is extended to include Brentwood and Basildon, and if the PCT area is extended too, it will greatly diminish the capacity of those, particularly in the development corporation, to be energised and enthusiastic in focusing on creating a new and exciting environment in this part of the Thames Gateway.
	I have indicated that I have some reservations and am disappointed about what has happened. The development corporation was set up by Parliament some time ago but has been enormously slow in getting under way. I do not want to rake over old coals; nor am I qualified probably to make a judgment. Sometimes people blame the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and sometimes people blame Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation. However, it has been enormously slow. Therefore I welcome the fact that, in the past few weeks, by statutory instrument, the development corporation has finally had its planning powers vested in it, and I understand that it now feels that it has the funding necessary for it to embark on its mission.
	I ask the Minister to look at that matter. It has tested my patience considerably to find that, after Parliament set up the development corporation well over a year ago, there was, until recently, little to show for it. It is relevant because the development corporation was given a relatively short lifespan: seven years. I could not understand that at the time, because the West Northamptonshire urban development corporation, which was set up at about the same time, was given 10 years. Basically, there is little more than five years left.
	It would greatly assist people like me, but more importantly, the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation, if the Government were to announce that its life expectancy was considerably longer. It is important that it be given more time, given that it will have to deal with land development and compulsory purchase orders, to attract the right staff to develop its mission of building the exciting area along the Thames Gateway, to collaborate with key partners and developers and to try to secure commercial development agreements and joint ventures. I hope that the Minister will draw that to the attention of his ministerial colleagues with some dispatch.

Michael Fabricant: In my experience, I have found that there is quite a variation in ability between various regional development agencies. Some are good, some are weaker. Is the hon. Gentleman finding that there is any conflict between the Thurrock development corporation and his regional development agency? If there is, does he think that the position can be improved, or do they work well in parallel?

Andrew MacKinlay: It is a timely intervention. In my notes, which I glance at from time to time, it says "plethora of bodies". That is a problem. There are so many agencies in the area with similar names. That confuses those of us who are very interested, so what bewilderment it causes to those who probably have less time to give to the matter, I do not know. It is enormously confusing.
	I want the Minister to consider that matter. I say this not with levity but in all seriousness. When he leaves the debate, if he rings directory inquiries and asks for the Thames Gateway development corporation, the Thames Gateway London Partnership, or Thamesgate Regeneration, he is unlikely to get who he wants. There are so many bodies with that title. It is a problem.
	I was deeply disappointed that my development corporation decided to call itself the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation, when there is a private consortium called Thamesgate Regeneration, which legitimately from its business point of view— I oppose its propositions and ambitions—seeks to develop in the green belt in Thurrock. I am opposed to it; I cannot put that in bigger capital letters. Sometimes I wish I could paint it on people's eyelids. Nevertheless, one can understand many of my constituents thinking that Thamesgate Regeneration is the same thing as the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation set up by the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Many people think that the Deputy Prime Minister personally is going to build 18,500 houses in the green belt, which is precious to us in Thurrock, aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who will carry all the bricks in a hob. It is not going to happen if I have anything to do with it, but that is what people fear and one can understand the confusion.
	It is a great pity that the ODPM did not take more interest in the title of the development corporation that covers my area. As an aside, I do not know why it was so frightened of calling these places "new towns", a title which does have some meaning. That conveys to people a concept—we are talking not just about houses but support services, infrastructure and transportation. The term "urban development corporation" does not convey much to people outside the chattering classes. It is history now, but it is a great pity that that was not dealt with. I want the Minister to make it clear, however, that the consortium that seeks to build in the green belt has absolutely no public endorsement. There is not even a planning application from it yet. However, I cannot over-emphasise—I am not over-egging the pudding—that people think that the two organisations, one private, the other set up by the Government, are one and the same thing and they assume therefore that we are going to breach our principle of jealously guarding the green belt.
	I was therefore grateful yesterday to be called by the Speaker and to have the assurance, which is in the Official Report, that the Government stand by their commitment to the green belt. Indeed, they can do so because I understand that the agreed targets of all the various agencies, including the Conservative-controlled Thurrock borough council, is that Thurrock's contribution in terms of residential units is about 18,500 houses.
	It is a fact that a third of those have already been built. Another 2,000 have planning permission. The reservoir of brownfield land and derelict land—it would be a good thing if it were cleaned and regenerated—in our borough can more than meet the target of providing the 8,000-plus additional houses that need to be built. Therefore, there is in Thurrock—it was reiterated by the Minister yesterday but I hope that the Minister present will do so again today—a presumption against building in the green belt because it is simply not necessary. Indeed it is desirable that brownfield land and derelict industrial land be brought back into good use, primarily, though not exclusively, for residential development. That is important.
	I listened earlier to hon. Members' comments on housing. I welcome the change of mood and tone from Conservative Front Benchers about the matter. A few months ago, they were saying different things, but if we have some degree of ecumenism—I cannot pronounce that but hon. Members know what I mean—on the issue, that is to be welcomed. However, it is incumbent upon all politicians to address the question of how and where to meet legitimate housing need.
	Sometimes I try to remind very good constituents of that. Like other hon. Members, I have lots of people—mums, dads and grandparents—coming to my surgery deeply concerned about their loved ones, probably a family who have just had their first child, and saying, "Where are they going to live?" Often, my constituents prudently and sensibly, as I would have done, purchased their council house. Somehow, however, they do not recognise that, when a unit of the housing stock is sold, it is not replaced the following morning. Some people think that almighty God must come down every morning and replenish the housing stock in nice areas without—it has one other great attribute—interfering with the visual or aural amenity of anyone else. We must tell people sensitively that we need new housing units. Such building can be on brownfield sites and derelict land that it would be useful to reclaim. People who already have homes cannot understand why their children and grandchildren cannot have homes, yet a few of them object to reasonable building proposals. We need to remind politicians, and sometimes our constituents, of the realities and facts of life.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although there may be additional costs in building on brownfield sites compared with greenfield ones there are added advantages owing the regeneration of inner cities? Previously, they were depopulated and only a doughnut-like outer ring had a thriving economy.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wholly agree with that view. As I said earlier, I welcome the tone of the debate; I only wish that 600 other Members were here to listen to it. Although the House is not packed, I shall not delay it too long as I realise that other Members want to speak, but I want to make a few more points.
	I welcomed the transfer from Thurrock borough council to the urban development corporation of planning powers for big developments—residential units of more than 50 dwellings, commercial developments of more than 2,000 sq m and developments close to the River Thames or the green belt—but I was disappointed that the corporation had no remit for design. All too often in my area, planners have paid insufficient attention to details such as facing materials and landscaping and design. We have both an opportunity and a challenge to ensure that residential and commercial buildings are at the cutting edge of attractiveness, modern design and functionality. Although that power has not been vested in the development corporation, I hope that the Minister will pump-prime through circulars and meetings, as there is an implicit obligation for both the development corporation, Thurrock borough council and other planning authorities to be sensitive and demand of developers that such things are not forgotten in their zeal to fulfil the wider mission.
	Mention has been made of a Thames crossing. I do not want to trespass on the debate or disagreement that may exist in Bexley or the London borough of Greenwich. However, I am surprised that there has not been more discussion about a Thames crossing to the east of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge and the Dartford crossing, as it is so important to United Kingdom commerce. That may present difficulties to some Members, because there will always be some nimbys who will not want a new crossing. However, we must address the fact that the QEII-Dartford crossing is like a funnel, which can sometimes be blocked, not for hours but for days, at enormous cost and loss to business and commerce and to the frustration of people who are trying to get to schools or workplaces. It is madness not to address that problem.

David Evennett: The hon. Gentleman's comments are opportune and interesting. Perhaps a bridge over the Blackwall tunnel should be considered, too.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am sure there is much in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he must forgive me for not trespassing on that area. The immediate needs of London—the area covered by the Greater London authority—should be addressed by people such as him, the GLA and the Mayor. My suggestion would not detract in any way from those discussions, but it is madness that all the business and commercial traffic from Scotland and the north of England is being funnelled through the QEII bridge and the Dartford crossing. Such crossings can be self-financing, as we know. It has always aggravated me that my constituents in south Essex and the hon. Gentleman's constituents in north Kent are paying through tolls for wider engineering works and road works to which everyone contributes. The QEII bridge has been more than paid for and in terms of revenue and funding has been enormously successful. There is no logical reason why there should not be a toll crossing to the east, probably at the eastern end of my borough, which would ensure that there is no paralysis when there is a fire or other major problem on the QEII-Dartford crossing and that commerce can continue. It would relieve pressure on the M25 and provide swifter communications to the channel ports, Medway and so on. I hope that the Government will address that matter with considerable dispatch.
	I do not want to conclude my remarks without mentioning the Olympics. I remind the Minister that in Thurrock we are 20 minutes from Stratford by train, so Thurrock could be a place for some of the development opportunities—for example, for training and dormitories—arising from our successful bid, and I hope that my area will be selected as an ideal location.

Charles Walker: I have only just come into the Chamber, but will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the Olympics to London and in urging the Government to ensure that our waterways are clean and pristine when we show them off to the world? In Broxbourne, we have canoeing, yet sewage is still discharged into the Lea valley river during severe cloudbursts. Will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on his colleagues on the Treasury Bench to ensure that we have a pristine London for that great event?

Andrew MacKinlay: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My geography was never perfect, but I think we are getting a little bit away from the Thames Gateway.

Andrew MacKinlay: In any event, I am sure that the Minister heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). The Government want the games to be successful so I am sure that something will be done.
	We shall not know for some days whether the BBC has taken an interest in this debate. I am considerably disappointed that the BBC in its various outlets shows a lack of interest in Thames Gateway issues. That is partly because the BBC's boundaries are somewhat confused, a problem somewhat aggravated by technological limitations, but as the BBC is currently contemplating renewal of its charter it should, through its various news outlets—radio, television and local broadcasting—address itself to such issues more than it does. There should be news-gathering, in terms of studios and professional staff, throughout the region; it should not merely be centred in Chelmsford and in Southend—important as Southend is. Other parts of the Thames Gateway could and should have news-gathering facilities. The BBC should pay attention to its output, which often relates to things that happen in London that have national importance rather than things that have a regional impact, and about which people have a right to know. Some of that criticism can also be directed at independent broadcasters. The BBC has a special obligation to be more sensitive to that point.
	I am pleased that I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I have been able to flag up the interests of Thurrock in this debate, particularly given that geographically and in terms of expectation we probably have the most to contribute to the exciting mission of developing a place for quality living and employment to the east of London.

James Brokenshire: I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss the London Thames Gateway and the Thames Gateway generally. The House debated this issue in November last year, but there have been a number of developments since then, so it is great that we have the opportunity to revisit the matter and to put the Thames Gateway firmly at the centre of the political agenda. It is extremely important not only to the regeneration of the east of London, but, in a wider economic context, to the entire country.
	My constituency is in the east of the London Thames Gateway area. I welcome the opportunity that the Thames Gateway offers to regenerate the south Havering area, not only in terms of housing but with a heavy emphasis on industry, employment opportunities and business. The key issue is to ensure that residents of east London and Essex have the ability to take advantage of those opportunities and that they are not passed to others elsewhere in the country or beyond.
	It is important that local residents are actively engaged in debate on the Thames Gateway agenda and in the process involved. I recognise the need for urban development corporations, but I have some concerns that they will distance the debate from local people and hamper their ability to be involved in strategic decisions, particularly in the planning arena.

Sarah Teather: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a great disappointment that the role of local authorities is being marginalised. Does he agree that as elected bodies, local authorities should play a much greater part, particularly in defining the location for new housing and the kind of development that there should be? It is disappointing that the UDCs are not elected and are therefore completely unaccountable.

James Brokenshire: I welcome the hon. Lady's comments; she makes a valid point about accountability. There are concerns about allowing people to feel that they are actively engaged in the process, and I feel that that is not happening at the moment. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) highlighted the confusion caused by the proliferation of organisations. It is feared that the UDCs might talk to primary care trusts, the Local Government Association and all the other governing organisations, but not directly to the people. We want to ensure that the voice of local people is heard.
	Various residents' groups are being set up in Rainham in my constituency. The Adamsgate action group is most concerned about overdevelopment and the future of the area. We must listen carefully to those voices, particularly given that UDCs have planning power over matters such as waste, which the hon. Member for Thurrock mentioned, and electricity generation. We are considering greater environmental treatment of waste and waste-to-energy projects, and it seems that the UDCs will be making direct decisions on such issues.
	My constituency, like that of the hon. Gentleman's, has significant waste facilities. We have a landfill site and there are proposals for waste-to-energy plants. Local residents are greatly concerned about the long-term implications of those proposals. There are plans to turn the landfill site into a country park and to open up the Thames river frontage, which is fantastic and part of the Thames Gateway vision. I do not want to discover in a few years' time that that vision has been stultified or blocked because it is felt that the site is needed for waste treatment. We must take advantage of the environmental benefits that would be brought about by opening up the river frontage. Most people would probably not even realise that my constituency led down to the Thames, because there is simply not enough access. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity that the Thames Gateway will bring to give the space back to the public and allow them access to the river. I know from a recent visit to the Cleanaway landfill site that, if one can hold one's nose, the view towards the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock is breathtaking. The sooner that site is turned over to public open space that people can enjoy, the better.
	We also have a superb resource in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds nature reserve. People do not necessarily take full account of such resources in considering what the Thames Gateway is all about. Great emphasis is put on housing and business, to which I shall refer in due course, but the environmental aspects are also key. Once the RSPB nature reserve is open, the communities of east London and Essex will benefit tremendously, in terms not only of appreciation of the sites but of education, health and well-being, as people will be encouraged to go out, walk and make the most of the facilities. Such hidden benefits need to be considered.

Bob Spink: Has my hon. Friend seen the RSPB document that talks about "Greening the Gateway", protecting biodiversity and green space and improving flood risk management? Neither the RSPB nor he believes that those can be achieved by building on that green space, however, which is what the Thames Gateway plans to do in my constituency.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about protecting resources for flood defence. We have touched on that issue more widely in terms of flood risk, and I am sure that we will return to the matter in future debates.
	As well as environmental benefits, there are opportunities for leisure, and we need to examine how to use the space sympathetically. It is important that my constituency does not have just housing, housing, housing and big blocks of flats. Neither my constituents nor those of the other hon. Members affected—on both sides of the House—would want such a vision. That relates to my initial comments about ensuring that the voices of local people are heard loud and clear. In Rainham in my constituency, there is an important opportunity to ensure that leisure is at the forefront of what is going on.
	Business, and generating jobs, is a key aspect of the Thames Gateway regeneration. In my constituency, the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence is adjacent to the Ford Dagenham plant. I note that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) is in the Chamber and I am sure that he will speak about the issue in much greater detail. It is important to note, however, that Ford has invested heavily in the Dagenham plant, and that it will build one in four diesel engines there. We cannot ignore the need for manufacturing and highly skilled jobs in the Thames Gateway if we are to give the next generation a real opportunity for work, ensuring that the British economy does not lose out to other areas in Europe and elsewhere.
	To my mind, the key is ensuring that local people are able to benefit. I noted the comments of the Campaign to Protect Rural England about educational attainment and employment skills:
	"In the London Thames Gateway, progress in meeting national learning targets lags behind that of other parts of London and employers have reported particular problems when recruiting for positions requiring 'higher-level' technical and/or managerial skills. This is a self-reinforcing situation that is clearly a disincentive for employers to locate or expand in the Thames Gateway".
	That is not helpful, and it is one reason why I intervened on the Minister for Housing and Planning. We must ensure that we focus on a wide range of skills, so that we can exploit the opportunities, encourage business to come to the area and make the most of the opportunities that, I hope, the Thames Gateway will present. There must be that investment in people.
	We have touched on investment in infrastructure. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned the long shopping list of things that are needed to enable effective regeneration. Certainly, from a local perspective, I welcome the investment that has already taken place in my constituency to provide funding for Rainham railway station and ensure that train lengths are expanded ultimately to 12 coaches, so that we can transit people to London, but we need more than that if the proposal is to be effective locally.
	We need to sort out the DLR link to Rainham and ensure that the east London transit scheme is prioritised, so that we have the transport infrastructure links to get people in and out of London and to gain access to Canary Wharf and other such areas. I met representatives from Canary Wharf only recently, and they emphasised their concern that if no transit was available from areas such as mine to Canary Wharf, the creation of jobs in that area could be inhibited. Thus the infrastructure issue is key, and transport is a central aspect of it.
	As hon. Members will appreciate, such infrastructure comes at a cost. I noted the Minister's comments about the £6 billion that was announced earlier in the year. Certainly, it would be interesting to hear more detail about the timing and the commitments that have been made. I was also interested to hear those comments in the context of the Olympics, which represent a tremendous opportunity for London and all the surrounding areas. My only concern is that the Olympics will take attention away from other areas in the Thames Gateway. We cannot ignore areas such as mine if we are to harness real opportunities there.
	I am concerned that money could be funnelled into the Olympics alone, which would have an adverse impact, as no regeneration would take place in my constituency and those of the hon. Members for Dagenham and for Thurrock, who are nodding. It is important that we do not lose out, that we ensure that money is not diverted just to the Olympics and that a focus is retained on the Thames Gateway.
	Another aspect of the Olympics is relocation: a number of businesses in the Olympics area will need to be relocated. That needs to be thought about carefully to ensure that we achieve balanced development with a balanced master plan throughout the Thames Gateway, so that certain areas do not have low-grade uses. A strategic thought process must be applied to the relocation of those businesses, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board in his comments at the end of the debate.
	The investment that is now coming into adjoining areas is important. I want to ensure that my borough of Havering is given the best chance to leverage in the opportunities that the Olympics will provide. That is why investment in infrastructure sooner rather than later is crucial in ensuring that areas such as mine can make the most of the Olympics and take advantage of them.
	Much of this debate is centred on ensuring that we get the right mix and balance of housing. I am still worried that the Government's approach might be too rigid and that too much focus is put on the need for numbers of houses, rather than thinking about the impact of such housing on communities and areas. That is important on several levels, and housing density is obviously a key issue. What is appropriate for one area might not be appropriate for another, so when this matter is considered, I hope that a straight ruler line will not be drawn to say that what works in one area will work in another, with development densities being driven by that. The system needs to be more sophisticated so that we can ensure that any development is sympathetic to the areas in which it takes place.
	I fear that planning policies, such as the sustainable communities plan and the London plan, and Housing Corporation funding are pushing us far too much towards one and two-bedroom flats and houses. We must take a broader view, especially when considering affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing stock with three or four bedrooms causes significant challenges. Despite my short time in the House, I already have a long list of people who have come to me for help because their one or two-bedroom flat is simply not big enough for them and their three kids. I fear that the problem is not being addressed properly or carefully.
	Two fifths of the demand in the London borough of Havering is for family-sized accommodation with three or four bedrooms. The traditional Housing Corporation method of funding has unfortunately led to a tendency towards one and two-bedroom houses and flats. Although I recognise that there has been a change in housing allocations and applications for the period between 2006 and 2008 as an attempt to move away from that situation, in practice my area is still receiving applications for one or two-bedroom properties, which will not create greater flexibility to offer family housing.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) will be pleased that he is not in the Chamber as I mention the phrases "sub-regional agenda" and "sub-regional housing allocations"—I apologise to him. The Housing Corporation normally gives funding on the basis that only 25 per cent. of new homes are allocated to their host borough, with the remainder allocated sub-regionally. That might be all well and good when considering the Thames Gateway area, but most people who are looking for housing want that to be in the area in which they are living. That factor must be considered.
	The plans that I have seen show that large housing growth is proposed for my south Havering area, which will mean that many people who currently live outside our area will move in. There is a risk that that will create local tension and put pressure on local government finance, so the matter will need to be examined carefully if we are to achieve the social cohesion and real sense of community to which hon. Members on both sides of the House aspire.
	An emphasis on housing can skew the debate, so I am pleased that several of the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the debate have stressed the importance of other issues and shown that we should not consider only housing. We must ensure that we do not end up with the problems that we have had in the past, certainly in my constituency. Rainham has, not to put too fine a point on it, been dumped on for far too long. It is important for the engagement process I talked about at the start of my speech that people do not feel dumped on and that this really is about regeneration and improving lives in the local community. There is a tremendous opportunity in the Thames Gateway.
	In some ways I do not want to create sustainable communities; I want to create vibrant communities. I want to create a strong sense of social cohesion, with a dynamic employment market providing significant employment opportunities—new jobs for the next generation—and places to live in of which we can all be proud. The phrase "sustainable communities" does not really encapsulate the vision that we need. That vision can be fulfilled only by making the right decisions now.
	There will be tough decisions, and the Government will have to be brave to follow this through. They will need to show great determination. I hope, for my constituents and the people in the surrounding areas of east London and Essex, that the Government are up to that challenge.

Jon Cruddas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who made a thoughtful contribution. I agreed with a whole swathe of the content, which makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. I am absolutely with him on the demand for social housing, for example. I welcome the Government-inspired investment in diesel technology and the investment by the Ford motor company on its estate, which four or five years ago was facing closure. We are now looking to create a robust centre for diesel engine technology, with many jobs, which will make one in four of the world's diesel engines.
	I welcome, too, the hon. Gentleman's comments about ensuring that we have the transmission belt of infrastructure investment so that our communities can benefit from job generation sites, be they in Canary Wharf or other parts of the Thames Gateway. That will help to ensure that we overcome some of the problems of past regeneration that have precluded local people benefiting.
	I have a slightly different take on the debate from the hon. Gentleman, but it does fit in with some of his comments about local community involvement in Thames Gateway regeneration and the key issue of sustainability. I will use the term "sustainability", although it is a bit of a misnomer when used in communities such as mine. At the moment, I do not have a sustainable community. A lot of the language and strategy deployed in the national debate at Westminster about the Thames Gateway is completely at odds with our local experience. We have a raw, difficult and brittle social and political formation and some issues need to be debated; otherwise, the Gateway will be seen as something that is done to people. People will have these changes deposited on them, to the detriment of their material circumstances, rather than being central to the future possibilities.
	I speak as someone who has always been very keen on the Thames Gateway. I was involved with it before I came to the House and I have always been a proud advocate of many of the possibilities that it will create. The Mayor of London has a creative approach to it, encapsulated in the Mayor's plan, in which he tries to deal with poverty, under-investment, neglect, race, class and imbalances in the city by focusing on economic development to the east. I warmly welcome that, not least because it is a way of handling changes in the city over the next 10 to 15 years. We all know about some of the estimates for the future, such as the extra 850,000 people and the like. The only way to deal with those is to rebalance the city eastwards.
	Having said all that, I shall come at the subject from a slightly different direction today. I was slightly late for the Minister's introductory remarks because I was at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre at the launch of a document, "The Far Right in London: a challenge for local democracy?", published by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. This marks an interesting staging post in the debate about sustainable communities in east London, not least because it tracks empirically the growth of voting for the BNP over the past few years in communities to the east of London. It also looks at some of the issues involved through effective and rigorous qualitative techniques and focus group research in my own community in Dagenham and east London.
	We must consider the issues thrown up in the debate about future economic regeneration. Our local political experience is at odds with the way in which the debate is calibrated in central London, partly because of the dynamics of political parties at Westminster. At the recent Liberal Democrat conference, young, lean and hungry men and women urged the party to take the centre ground and nudged their leader accordingly. Conservative Members are voting today on the trajectory that their party should take. The leading contender is urging a recalibration of Conservative politics towards the centre ground. The three political parties are focusing on a select area of the political map, with tactics hinging on swing voters in a few marginal constituencies. Accordingly, there is an ever more scientific analysis of swing voters' preferences and prejudices. Arguably, that serves to disfranchise many voters in communities such as mine. That makes party and policy renewal difficult for the Government, because the gearing of the electoral system serves to create a political strategy that compounds the problems experienced in our local communities.
	I want to expand that argument with reference to three issues, starting with population movements and the quantitative resource allocation of public expenditure. London has a population of 7.4 million. The Government have recently acknowledged, on the basis of surveys and responses, that there are a minimum of 570,000 illegal migrants in Great Britain. That does not include dependants, so we must assume that the true figure is much greater. This morning, urban geographers said that the vast majority of those people live in London, but they are off the radar of public policy makers because, by definition, they are illegal. In addition, the National Audit Office has estimated that there are 290,000 failed asylum seekers in the system, so there are hundreds of thousands of people in the city who do not appear on the radar of public policy making. Those people are not living in Kensington, because they gravitate to the areas of the city with the lowest-cost housing market. Dagenham has the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London and exerts a magnetic pull on people moving into and within the city that has been increased by the massive hike in London property prices over the past five or six years. It offers low-cost housing and, as a result of the right to buy, has a much greater private housing market.
	There has therefore been an extraordinary transformation in the community over the past few years in both size and heterogeneousness. A great deal of that transformation, however, is not captured on the formal statistic baseline because it is illegal. The rapid change and growth of the community collides with a long-term legacy of poverty, under-investment and neglect in the financing of public services. The collision between the rate of change in the past few years and the legacy of under-investment is creating a scenario in which the British National party can organise and become active in our local community. Quantitative resource allocation is critical for Dagenham, as we are a unique depository for a great deal of population movement into and within the city. A second important factor, however, is the policy formation strategies of political parties, which are driven by the preferences of swing voters in marginal seats and may compound our problems as local policy priorities are at odds with those of the middle England swing voter.
	That brings us back to the social housing issue. I cannot understand why it is not the dominant political issue in this country. It is the dominant political issue in my community, by a country mile. We have ever-expanding social housing allocation and transfer lists. As a consequence of modern decent homes standards, we are pulling down high-rises and decanting hundreds of families, thereby reducing the stock. The right to buy continues remorselessly, reducing the stock further. There are no new council housing units. We scramble around to get new partnerships to maintain nomination rights for us locally, but it is an almighty struggle, not least because of the reform of local authority social housing grant over the past couple of years.
	Through the cumulative effect of those factors, housing becomes the dominant issue and, for much of my community, the psychological link between their material circumstances, the changing community, issues of colour, race and the consumption of public services, and fascist or far right political activity. Unless we unblock the linkage between housing and the consumption of public services in poor communities, we will fail to resolve the material issues that are creating such an environment.
	Public policy makers work on certain lagged indicators of population movement or growth. Those do not include migrant labour or illegal migrant workers who move into low-cost housing areas. They do not even include the recent rate of change because they are based on out-of-date statistical data. We cannot even tread water through incremental investment in public services because the community is expanding so much faster than the incremental investment, which compounds and intensifies the problems of the consumption of public services, so people see migration as pivotal to the decline of their own relative social wage. They therefore join the dots and see the migrant as affecting their own economic and material circumstances and those of their family and community. That creates the perfect setting for the BNP.
	The third element in the role of public policy makers and Governments is the pretty wretched process by which, because of the political imperatives of middle England, we must seek to neutralise or, in the code, triangulate around difficult political territory. That brings us back to race, asylum, migration and immigration—witness the appalling way those were handled at the last general election. That is a generic problem for all political parties; I am not singling out any in particular.
	The problem is that we use the language of restriction when we talk about migration, asylum and immigration, which is at odds with our economic strategy, which is a more instrumental one aimed, first, at creating lower wage labour market flexibility, secondly, at creating the labour to rebuild our public services, and thirdly, at filling future skill shortages and demand for labour. Accordingly, there is a collision between the language that we use and the economics driving our domestic strategy for public services and labour market policy. That in turn compounds the problems in communities such as mine, which are trying to navigate through the great changes occurring within and around them.
	Cumulatively, that creates a difficult political formation for us because of the quantitative issue of resource allocation, the public policy priorities locally, which are at odds with those of national Government—

James Brokenshire: On skills, I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about migration, but it is essential that there is the necessary investment in training and skills to ensure that that is not another reason for the social and community tensions that he describes.

Jon Cruddas: I agree. If we want to confront these difficult issues and take the heat out of the situation that is producing the phenomenon of a durable far right political project in east London and beyond— the phenomenon is transportable to other areas of the country that were traditional working class communities suffering from ongoing deindustrialisation over decades—we must examine how we use often illegal migrant labour and the relationship with skills formation across the community. Issues of race, asylum and immigration should be dealt with not in an increasingly muscular bidding war about the number of migrants, but through an economic discussion of the future demand for labour, how that can be anticipated and how much foreign labour needs to be sucked in. In turn, the tacit use of illegal migrant workers should not occur. Instead, we should build from a departure point of rights for all workers, rather than placing restraints on numbers. The debate about race, immigration, asylum and labour markets should be reconfigured from the departure point of the rights of the individual worker.
	I refer hon. Members to a recent Institute of Employment Rights book, "Labour Migration and Employment Rights", which does public policy making in this country a great service by taking on such difficult political terrain and offering initiatives to reconfigure the debate and take out the toxic element of race.
	I am a great supporter of the Thames Gateway agenda. We always seem to debate projected movements of people—for example, 850,000 people in 2015. We rule off the baseline of public policy making on the question of illegal migrants—700,000 to 800,000 people could gravitate to this city's poorest areas—in a fairly static way, rather than seeing public policy making alongside the dynamic at work in London, which is a relentless, vibrant world city.We tend to see the Thames Gateway as a static future model of population movement, based on the assumption that a city such as Leeds will move down into east London at some point in the future. The movement is already under way and the engine is already driving the process. Unfortunately, the engine consists of those people who are often most excluded in terms of public policy making, and they are often invisible in our debates. However, they are not invisible to people in my community, who regard them as central to their own material circumstances.
	As ever, I welcome the debate, which is complicated by the different public policy issues. I am deeply concerned that rather than discussing sustainable local communities, we are trying to navigate difficult terrain. For example, the BNP has averaged 35 per cent. in the five most recent council elections in my borough. That is not a one-off protest; that is a profound and durable form of far right political activity.
	We got off lightly at the general election. In the constituency next to mine, Barking, the BNP got only 16.9 per cent., but one week before polling day we thought that it would get more than 25 per cent. Indeed, BNP research suggested returns in five wards in that constituency of between 48 and 52 per cent. I know that the Government are aware that that is a massive issue in terms of community cohesion, and their ideas on how to grapple with it are creative, not least because ODPM Ministers know a lot about east London— the Under-Secretary has a long history of working in the area, and the two PPSs, my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Paul Clark) and for Ipswich (Chris Mole), are also knowledgeable. I urge them to be more creative about the question of race, migration and numbers, and about resource allocation to those communities that are arguably most in need of a Labour Government.

David Amess: I apologise to the House for not being present throughout our proceedings; I have been attending Baroness Blatch's memorial service and invigilating the extraordinarily exciting Conservative party leadership contest.
	My interest in the debate is real. I am a relatively poor Conservative Member: I own only two properties—one in the Isle of Dogs and one in Southend, West.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman is not Chairman of a Committee, is he?

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I shall not comment on his sedentary intervention.
	I am sure that the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one of my properties is at the start of the Thames Gateway and the other is at the end. But my interest in the area goes much further. I was born in Plaistow, many of my relatives still live in Newham, and my heart belongs to London.
	One of the greatest achievements of the Conservative Government was the regeneration of the east end of London in the '80s and '90s. I get a tremendous buzz from what has been achieved in docklands. It is remarkable and exciting, and it was a tremendous achievement. I recall as if it were yesterday going with a group of then colleagues to a barren warehouse that was described as being where London City airport would be. I thought that such an engineering feat was impossible and wondered, "My goodness, how are the local residents going to put up with aeroplanes landing and taking off in the middle of the east end?" But it happened, and it has been a tremendous success. As I said to the noble Baroness last week at her 80th birthday party, it was certainly one of her finest achievements.
	I feel very uncomfortable with much of the modern language that we use. I hate the jargon, and I have cringed a little at what I have already heard. I do not know who thought up the expression, "Thames Gateway", but I do not like it. The River Thames is beautiful. When I do my tours round the House of Commons, I say that it is cleaner than the Seine and the Rhine, and it would not be hard to be cleaner than the Nile. It is a very beautiful river and we should be proud of it.
	In my constituency, unlike those of any number of my colleagues, housing is not an issue, because there is no room to build. The only way in which one could build new houses in Southend, West would be by knocking down an old property and replacing it. In some parts of Essex, though, if one is not walking quickly one will be built on—either that or someone will stick a mobile phone mast on one's head. In many respects, there is an obsession with building in Essex. I have huge sympathy with many of my colleagues who are worried about the overdevelopment, as they see it, of their constituencies. When, many moons ago, I was Member of Parliament for Basildon, we had the London Development Corporation and the Commission for New Towns, and I saw at first hand how we benefited tremendously from those two organisations.
	As the Minister knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch and no such thing as a free debate, and I am unashamedly participating in this debate to ask for his help. I am grateful for all the assistance that we have been given by Thames Gateway so far. Again, it seems only yesterday that Mary Spence came to see me at one of my surgeries when the vehicle was being set up and did not have a great deal of money or clout, and I listened carefully to what she said. I congratulate her and her staff on what they have achieved so far.
	The Minister for Local Government has already been tremendously helpful to Southend, and I have every intention of persuading the Under-Secretary to join his colleague in being helpful.
	I was thrilled that we won the bid for the Olympic games. My God, I wish I had been at the meal with Putin and Chirac. One could imagine their faces. I did not believe that we would get the games, but I am thrilled that we did. I agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) said about the Olympic games in his magnificent speech. I am determined that Southend will be at their heart. As hon. Members might expect, I shall mention not only the cliff slippage but Southend pier later. The Olympic games provide a marvellous opportunity for local communities not only to get involved but to become motivated about sport and experience the lasting regeneration of their landscape.
	Thames Gateway South Essex partnership—here I go into the jargon—pledged its commitment to support the 2012 Olympics in July 2005 and published its proposals to offer preparation camp facilities for the athletes in the run-up to the games. Southend is a unitary authority and we have already held some good meetings with the leader of Essex county council. I hope that Southend will be included in Essex's bid to host some of the sportswomen and sportsmen. There is already good access to Southend from London Southend and Stansted airports as well as two mainline rail links to Stansted and a proposed additional airport-rail link, which I shall discuss shortly.
	I perceive the project as not only supporting the Olympians and Paralympians who will stay in Southend in 2012. I believe that the investment must be carefully targeted so that it leaves an infrastructural legacy of sporting, leisure and transport facilities, from which future generations can benefit long after the closing ceremony of the games in 2012.
	If the Under-Secretary has no time to reply, perhaps he will write to me, but Southend council is keen to learn from the Government whether additional funding of private finance initiative credits will be available to support the development of sporting and cultural facilities in the Gateway. We have our particular hobby horse in Southend—the replacement of Warriors swim centre, which once produced Anita Lonsborough. It is embarrassing because I have forgotten the name, but Southend had a famous diver—

Derek Wyatt: Brian Phelps.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman, who was educated in a Southend school, remembers better than I do. The local authority is keen for the Government to support its plans to rebuild our swimming pool.
	Southend borough council's main goal throughout the development period is to create:
	"A town by the sea where people want to live, work and play—a 21st Century urban seaside resort and regional cultural capital."
	Although the hon. Member for Thurrock is an advocate of old Leigh, we do not have as many day trippers as formerly, so we are trying to reposition ourselves in the market. I must now go on to more "speak".
	The draft regional spatial strategy for the east of England introduces specific guidance for the Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region to deliver regeneration in a manner specific to the needs and requirements of the local area. The prioritised requirements are to achieve employment-led regeneration, wealth creation and growth with improvements to transport infrastructure. It is hoped that that can be achieved by working in partnership with the Thames Gateway at other levels and by retaining an emphasis on local "Zones of Change and Influence" to allocate resources where they are most needed in line with the regional economic strategy prepared by the East of England Development Agency. That means, in short, "If there is any money going, Southend would like some of it to do what the council says".
	The Southend local strategic partnership has prepared a "Southend Together" community plan for the borough, developed in association with the Thames Gateway South Essex partnership to form a core strategy and framework that is currently undergoing a period of public consultation in Southend. We are inviting local residents to give their views on the proposed strategies for economic development in the region. I should point out to the Minister, however, that economic development is, as ever, a double-edged sword.
	The planned multi-million-pound expansion of Southend airport in time for the 2012 Olympics would include a new terminal and railway station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). It would be built at the Rochford site, and would be linked directly to London. I am advised by the council, however, that the plans may be under threat if proposals to build a car park on green belt land are rejected. I will not bore the House with the criteria for green belt, as it might prove embarrassing. John Allen is the director of planning at the London Thames Gateway development corporation. Whatever view he and his colleagues take, I ask them to think carefully about the regeneration projects being undertaken by the corporation.
	I am not alone in highlighting the serious environmental issues facing the Thames Gateway. The London Assembly recently warned that the area was at high risk of flooding, and that should the defences fail we would incur a natural and humanitarian disaster on the scale of the one in New Orleans. The main worry seems to be over who is responsible for maintaining the defences. Surely we should not be embarking on a large-scale expansion of residential and business premises while the stability of flood defences is still unknown.
	The Government are calling all the shots. Although my party lost the general election, however, we are not sulking; we are embracing all the Government's initiatives. I must therefore tell the Minister that I am here, unashamedly, with a begging bowl.
	English Heritage rightly points out that, contrary to popular perceptions, the Thames Gateway boasts a number of rich historic sites, from the Tilbury fort—where Queen Elizabeth I delivered her rallying speech to the Navy before it defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588—to four of England's six historical naval dockyards. To that list I would add Southend pier.
	The Minister and I were once joint chairmen of the all-party fire and safety group. Let me tell the Minister of my experience. We live fairly near the pier, and when my wife woke me saying "Goodness, there is a strong smell of burning", I panicked—for all the right reasons. When I eventually went down to the pier, I could not believe that we had suffered the same disaster for the third time. When I was taken to see the damage, I recognised about half a building that had been at the end of the pier. It is truly upsetting to see the damage: when one reaches the end of the railway, that is it. The station, the pub and the fish and chip shop are no longer there. The end of the pier remains, at which the magnificent sea rescue service is located, but the bit in between is missing.
	Southend pier is a very famous pier; in fact, it is the longest in the world. I would like Southend to host one or two sporting activities during the 2012 Olympic games, and although there are plans to use the London Eye for the associated celebrations, I am sure that the pier, which is something to be proud of, could also play a part. The leader of Southend council has the full support of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, and Mr. Geoffrey Van Orden—one of our European MEPs—in consulting local partners on the pier's reconstruction, so that we can restore it to its former Victorian splendour.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to revitalise the region via modernisation, but that ought not to be done at the expense of popular and historic landmarks such as Southend pier. When it is restored, it will be a source of continuing pride and enjoyment for the Thames Gateway region.

Bob Spink: My constituents also have an interest in this wonderful edifice, so will my hon. Friend add my name to his list of supporters?

David Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to members of the fire service. They worked throughout the night, and how they saved as much of the pier as they did, I do not know. They did a fantastic job, and had they not acted so quickly and worked such long hours, the damage would have been much worse. Some people might say, "It's only a pier, David, for God's sake get a life!", but it has given tremendous pleasure to the elderly—never mind the young and middle aged. The elderly do not travel the pier's mile-and-a-half length on their zimmer frames; they use electric wheelchairs, or the pier train. Eating their fish and chips in the middle of the Thames estuary gives them one hell of a buzz, so I ask the Minister to do what he can to support Southend pier.
	The Minister will know that Southend's local authority is also very keen to have a regional casino. I shall not get too far into that argument this afternoon, but I should point out that at my party's conference in Blackpool two weeks ago various people told me that a casino would be located there. Perhaps the Minister will pass on the message that it would be jolly useful to have some clarity on this issue. Will there be just one casino? If so, that should be the end of the matter. We do not want local authorities to waste huge amounts of time and money employing consultants, if they have not a cat in hell's chance of getting a regional casino.
	As a fellow West Ham United supporter, I offer my final bribe to the Minister. Southend United are top of league one and West Ham are doing much better than we perhaps anticipated. The icing on the cake would be if the Minister chose to use today's winding-up speech to announce that he will give Southend council some £50 million to help rebuild the pier.

Clive Efford: When I entered the Chamber today to participate in this debate, I did not expect to be taken on a tour of North-East Derbyshire. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel) on her maiden speech, and on taking us as far as Skinner's junction—another place that I never knew existed. So I have learned something, and I look forward to working with her as a comrade and colleague.
	Thames Gateway is changing east London for the better; indeed, enormous and rapid change is taking place. Depending on whom we talk to or whom we get the figures from, it appears that 150,000 to 200,000 homes will be built. Already, my borough has seen an enormous growth in the local population. People are starting to talk about what is happening to our public services and the demands made of our local health service, local schools, local police and so forth. I know from talking to my constituents that those issues are being discussed. We need to set out clearly our proposals for meeting the needs of the new population in the Thames Gateway area.
	Jobs are important. Depending on where one acquires the statistics, between 120,000 and 150,000 jobs will be created in the Thames Gateway area. Hon. Members whose constituencies are close to the area, but are not necessarily part of it, ask the same question as I have consistently raised in debates on regeneration programmes: how do we ensure that the benefits reach the wider community? Transport infrastructure is particularly important because it allows the wider community to access the Thames Gateway regeneration and benefit from the economic activity that it stimulates.
	I want to mention the peninsula at north Greenwich, which saw the grand opening of the Jubilee line five years ago. One can now leave the dome on the peninsula and get to St. John's Wood more quickly than to my constituency, which is in the same borough as the dome.
	There has been a serious planning failure in what I call the second phase of development of transport infrastructure. We have not thought enough about how we feed into the new transport hubs that we are creating, which is so important for the wider community's ability to access the benefits. When I spoke previously about the need to improve transport links in south-east London, I referred to young people in my constituency who want to go to the cinema in north Greenwich. It is a three quarters of an hour bus ride away—a large chunk out of a young person's day, especially when he has to use public transport to travel there and back—and represents a serious block on those young people accessing that service. We need to pay more attention to ensuring that these schemes properly link up to the wider community, and we need to take all sections of the community into account.
	I would be failing my constituents if I did not raise the issue of Crossrail. It is essential for London and will generate about 40 per cent. of the total anticipated capacity needs for transport across London. It is expected to carry about 250,000 people during peak times such as the morning rush hour and will be essential for linking east London with the more prosperous west and with Heathrow and beyond in the future.
	As the Minister will be aware, there are currently no proposals for establishing a station at Woolwich, yet Woolwich is a major transport hub for south-east London. It is the nearest place at which my constituents could access the Crossrail service. The current proposal is that it will not stop anywhere between the Isle of Dogs and Abbey Wood—a six-mile stretch of Crossrail. There is no similar stretch without a station in between and it bypasses one of our major town centres.
	This may sound like a whinge—it is a whinge!—but I have to say that if we were talking about west London, bypassing a town centre in that way would not be contemplated. In previous debates on infrastructure projects, I have referred to other examples such as the Hammersmith and City line. Someone who suggested that that line should bypass Hammersmith, Broadway—a transport hub with bus and other links to west London—and stop instead at Ravenscourt Park down the road would have been laughed out of court. Yet that is exactly what is being proposed, even though Woolwich in south-east London is already a big transport hub.
	The transport links that I have described are even more essential when one considers that my area does not have access to the tube network or to the docklands light railway. The DLR will reach Woolwich in the next five or six years, but the wider community will still suffer from a lack of direct access to public transport. That makes the development of a local transport hub even more essential, so that people can access all the different modes of transport. In that way, we can encourage the use of public transport and go some way towards dealing with the growing demand for road space in south-east London.
	That demand will only be exacerbated by the current rate of development. We must consider how we address some of the current problems in my constituency, which is located at the confluence of the A2 and the A20. There are enormous traffic congestion problems there, and improved transport links are absolutely vital. To that end, we must develop the transport hub at Woolwich.
	I went to Stratford this week, to see the preparations for the 2012 Olympics. Since my previous visit, enormous progress has been made in extending the DLR. It now reaches the edge of the Thames, and the next phase of development will take it across the river and into Woolwich town centre. The hope is that the line will open some time in 2008–09.
	I want however to make sure that the development benefits the wider community. We must consider where the DLR will go next, and there is an argument that the line should move away from the river and take in communities such as my constituency in Eltham. In that way, people there will be able to benefit from the new transport infrastructure links being built.
	Hitherto, the traditional routes that people take to and from work have resembled the spokes of a wheel, with people living on London's outskirts using the rail or tube networks to reach their places of employment in the centre of the capital. However, with the development of the east Thames corridor and growing demand to access the Thames Gateway, more people in my constituency will want to travel north and east. Therefore, links such as the DLR, which will head south from the river towards my area, will be vital. That is another reason why it is so important to establish the Crossrail transport hub at Woolwich that I spoke about earlier.
	I must tell the House that I was very impressed by what I saw at Stratford on my visit this week. The members of the Olympic committee must have heard our arguments about London's transport system and imagined that it was creaking and incapable of accommodating the demand inspired by the games. People who do not live in London and who are not involved in the transport discussion could be forgiven for labouring under that false impression, but we should not lose sight of the fact that more than 90 per cent. of those who work in the City of London travel in and out by public transport.
	London's transport system is very effective, and the scale of the development already in place must have impressed the Olympic committee enormously when it arrived in Stratford. Moreover, we are not talking about a concept or a model on a table: a real infrastructure development is under way, and it is considerably well advanced. I was certainly impressed with it, although certain elements could be improved. I do not want to overstate the problem, but we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Paralympics are the second biggest sporting event in the world, being bigger than the football World cup. They will take place in Stratford, but very little consultation about the development of transport links is taking place with groups representing disabled people, such as DIPTAC.
	There is an irony in that, and we need to address the matter soon. There are some concerns about the accessibility of transport and whether it is suitable for disabled people. It is essential that we deal with that matter in the near future.
	The development of the dome by Anschutz will bring a lot of regeneration. I have already spoken about the need to improve transport links to that and about the training opportunities. I draw to the Minister's attention the opportunities for training that are provided by Greenwich community college at a unique facility that it has developed with Charlton Athletic football club: it has based one of its faculties, which is called the London Leisure college, at Charlton Athletic for several years.
	Greenwich community college has positioned itself to develop opportunities for training in the leisure industry. It has started to train stewards for major events and to provide health and safety training and other forms of training, so that people who are putting on large events, including those at Charlton Athletic and the London Arena in the docklands, can employ qualified and trained staff. Clearly, the Olympics could benefit from input from the community college. In the Minister's future discussions about the development of the Olympics, that should not be overlooked.
	The major contribution that the development of the Thames Gateway can make is in housing. Shelter's recently published report, "Building Hope: the case for more homes now", highlights the scale of need across the country, including in London. Nation wide, there are 116,000 children living in temporary accommodation. Over 73,000 of those live in London. There are 900,000 children nationally who are in overcrowded accommodation and 261,000 of those are in London.
	Living in cramped accommodation has all sorts of implications for young people who are trying to educate themselves and to study at home. There are also implications for their health. All the studies on the development of children who are in temporary accommodation show that, because their base is temporary and they often get moved, their development falls behind that of their peers, which puts them at a disadvantage. We are developing schemes such as Sure Start, which those children often do not have access to, and targeting education to improve standards of attainment. When that number of children do not have a permanent home where they can study properly, or where they have difficulty in getting the home life that they need to be able to make the best of their education, we have a serious problem in tackling the Government's agenda on developing those young people. Housing is therefore central to the success of the Thames Gateway.
	A growing number of people are living in temporary accommodation for long periods. In 1997–98, the percentage of people who were in temporary accommodation for over two years was 1 per cent., but that has grown to nearly 10 per cent. The percentage who have been living in such accommodation for more than one year is up to nearly 25 per cent., so it is essential that we deal with the issue of affordable housing in the Thames Gateway area.
	I am absolutely sick and tired of not being able to help the families who come to my surgery who are looking for housing. Three generations are living in a house. As I have said before in the Chamber, those families are living in houses that were built by a Labour Government, and they are now looking to a Labour Government to give them the start in life that was afforded to their parents. We must address that issue. Those people look to us to provide them with affordable housing. No amount of schemes to assist families to purchase, which I fully support and welcome, will address the fundamental problems of overcrowding and the number of families in temporary accommodation. If they could afford to buy, temporary accommodation is certainly an incentive; if they could buy, they would get themselves out of it pretty damn quick. There is a growing need for affordable accommodation for rent and we are not addressing it forcefully enough in the Thames Gateway development.
	Shelter tells us that we need to build 20,000 additional homes each year until 2010 and that in London we need almost 6,000 homes a year in addition to those already proposed, to deal with our housing problems. If we fail to address the problem in a regeneration programme as big as Thames Gateway, we shall be letting down a whole generation of young families in London.
	We have to ask who the regeneration is for. At the end of the programme, when the Thames Gateway area is fully regenerated, who will be living there? Who will benefit from all the effort that we, as politicians, have put in to bring about change? Will it be the people we were elected to represent—those who really need to benefit from the regeneration? That is the real measure of whether the Thames Gateway and everything we have discussed, including the Olympic games, will be of benefit to London and its people.

Derek Wyatt: I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was on the Westminster estate at a meeting with a senior Minister.
	It is good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), although I spend far too much time in his constituency as both a shareholder and season ticket holder of Charlton Athletic. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is no longer in the Chamber, as I was brought up in Leigh-on-Sea and attended West Leigh primary school and Westcliff high school. As a boy, I did the Boxing day run along the pier many times. I know how important the pier is in the culture of Southend, so I hope that we can do as much as possible to support its rebuilding, even though it is for the third time. All our piers are wonderful, but Southend's is especially wonderful.

Bob Spink: As the hon. Gentleman is from Leigh, he will know what a beautiful community it is and how much it depends on the biodiversity and beauty of the Thames alongside which it sits. Is he concerned about the massive dredging of the Thames, which is part of the Thames port development, but which will completely destroy the biodiversity of the area, and probably the fishing industry on which Leigh also relies?

Derek Wyatt: I was not aware of any of that. I was a sea scout in Old Leigh so I know the sailing waters pretty well at both Canvey and Shoeburyness. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I am sure that the Minister will be better able to respond to them.
	I have a lot for which to thank the Thames Gateway. Since 1945, my constituency has had only three significant infrastructure awards. The first was a new road, the A249, in 1996. The second was the Sittingbourne Memorial hospital in 1996. The then Conservative Government opened the hospital but could not afford to open the wards—an extraordinary decision. The third thing was a bridge. A brand new bridge was built 32 years ago, yet within six months the dock at Sheerness was closed. The only reason for the bridge was that there was a naval dockyard at Swale, which forms part of Sheppey, and Sheerness would have been the first port of call in an attack on the Thames and the fleet would have been scuppered behind the Isle of Sheppey. We then had a bridge that we did not want. Since 1997, we have had almost £200 million-worth of infrastructure, largely on the Isle of Sheppey, which is one of the poorest areas in Britain. So, I have a hell of a lot to thank the Minister and the Department for.
	The new bridge is still being completed but it will soon be open. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, and I went to the top of it. It is phenomenal; it is the fastest built bridge so far in Britain and is going up in the space of 18 months. It is more than a mile and a half long and it is a sensational piece of civil engineering. I pay tribute to Carillion and the other engineers who have built it. We hardly ever give thanks to our civil engineers, yet we have the legacy of Telford, Stevenson, Brunel and others who have made modern civil engineering what it is today. The bridge will change the way in which the island works: for the first time, it will be permanently connected to the mainland. That will change the sociology, culture and community of the Isle of Sheppey.
	There is one other piece of infrastructure which I know the ODPM is looking at: the Rushenden link road—the last piece of infrastructure that I would ever ask of the Government. It is a £25 million scheme. I think that we will get the money, although I know that the decision will be made in the next six weeks. I ask the Department to look favourably on the poorest part of my constituency. If Rushenden and Queensborough could be rescued, the area would for the first time be a plus on the Chancellor's balance sheet. The scheme would give us not just more housing but a brand new business park, a new school and a new shopping centre, and revitalise the poorest area on my patch.
	In 2002, we had a new hospital, and on Monday last week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that it would spend £2.6 million on our coastal erosion, because one of our villages is moving slowly into the sea. We need help at the bottom and at the top. Fortunately, after campaigning, we have won that money.
	Nearly £40 million is going into Sittingbourne, a small paper town where the paper is no longer so important—we used to have 10 mills, but now we have three. We used to have 20 or 30 brickworks, but now we have three or four. As it is an old Saxon town, it is caught in the middle. We are building a northern distributor road around Sittingbourne, which is the last piece of infrastructure that the town will need. We may still need a bypass for Newington, but I shall stop there, because the Government have listened and have been generous to my community.
	I want to pose a couple of difficult questions. First, a delivery agency, Swale Forward, which is run by Kent county council, is based in Swale borough council's offices inside the Thames Gateway. That is a muddle. I would rather have Swale Forward as part of the Thames Gateway project, and not as a KCC project. If we are to deliver on some of the larger infrastructure projects, will the Minister consider moving Swale Forward into the Thames Gateway decision-making process?
	Secondly, will the Minister have a word with Network Rail, which is one of the most obstructive organisations that I have come across? We have an offer of a brand new £70 million shopping centre, which we badly need, but Network Rail wants £5 million for the work involved. The developer is prepared to match some of the money. The money would go into central coffers, whereas the developer would like to rebuild Sittingbourne railway station. Anyone who knows that station will acknowledge that it needs to be rebuilt. The principle seems wrong. The money should go not to the Exchequer but to making good the railway. The same could be said of part of the bridge and the system connected with the Rushenden link road. Once again, Network Rail has not exactly been helpful. Is the Minister prepared to host a meeting between Network Rail, Swale Forward, Hammersons, the developers, and me so that we can bang some heads together?
	While I am thankful, I am also slightly apprehensive about developments in the summer in relation to primary care trusts. We have had two new hospitals, one in 1996 and one in 2002, but this week closures were announced of one ward in one hospital and one ward in another because of a £12 million overdraft. We have the smallest PCT in Kent. It was formed only three years ago, and it seems to me that we have a cultural problem with managing change, initiatives and innovation in the health service. The nation as a whole does not seem able to handle or grasp strategy and leadership in the health service, and I am nervous and apprehensive about what will happen now. Last year, I campaigned for an increase in health funding for my area, and I got 15 per cent., the second largest in the country. It is useless to think that we can improve cancer and heart services in my community if we are managing a £12.2 million debt at the same time. In that context, it seems that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
	I am happy, however, that with the left hand the infrastructure of my constituency has been upgraded for the 21st century, and thrilled that, as far as the right hand is concerned, the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey will benefit from a potential £40 million investment in secondary education on the island. People say that there is not joined-up government, but we have it. Over the past eight years, we have proposed these changes, the Government have listened carefully in every department, and they have done the left hand and come back to finish the right hand.
	The last thing to be done is to sort out the secondary education system on the Isle of Sheppey. The bridge will not only physically join Sheppey to the mainland but will provide the 21st century society that we want.
	As for concerns about the Thames Gateway, I would first mention the governance issue. Are we brave enough to give it a regional development agency? Can we give it an RDA? What stops us wanting to give it an RDA? Not having one stops us saying that the Thames Gateway will be the third biggest economic area in the British Isles. If we had an RDA, we could start to ask questions such as, "What is world-class?" We do not have a world-class university in the Thames Gateway or world-class software or training companies. We can say that we have good Thames Gateway facilities, but we are now in competition with India and China. An RDA would provide leadership and enable us to work out much stronger strategies in association with local politicians. It is not that we do not have that, but we lack the RDA nomenclature, which is important.
	It is now critical that we move the agenda not just to infrastructure, which we have all discussed, but to ask what is world-class about the region. If it is not world-class, what is the point of doing all these things? We must raise people's expectations and aspirations, and make them understand that they are no longer in competition with Germany and Japan but, as I said, the new leaders in China and India.
	On housing, my area has such a shortage that I might be the only MP who welcomes housing development. Our community has different needs, with more than 35,000 people over 60, many of whom find living in two and three-bedroomed accommodation difficult. As they grow old, they wish to move to bungalows. However, one cannot find builders who want to build bungalows or modern ground-floor apartments for old people. Would the Minister consider an exciting housing scheme, such as the one that I saw on Vancouver island? In that scheme, 60-year-olds who had use of their limbs and could feed themselves moved to the third floor; as they got slightly older they went to the second floor where there was home help; and when they needed day care they moved to the ground floor. The 200 or 300 people involved did not move outside that community, which is critical. There is no thinking about how to help and plan for our old people, of whom we will have more and more.
	I still cannot find out what an infrastructure audit is. I have raised that issue in a ten-minute Bill, and it has been raised in a private Member's Bill. Over the next 10 years, some 8,000 houses are due to be built in my constituency. I am happy to bat for the Government on this, but I cannot find out from Kent county council, the South East England Development Agency or from anyone else what 8,000 houses mean in terms of a primary school, a doctor, a nurse, a fireman, a policeman or whatever. For every 1,000 houses, do we need two policemen, six nurses, one doctor and four teachers? I do not know, but this is the 21st century and it is about time that someone did some modelling to show that so many houses equals so much need on the public sector side. If that is available in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, please could I have a copy? I would love to be able to fight the Department, in the nicest sense, to ensure that I have the right infrastructure to accompany the 8,000 houses that are due to be built in my constituency over the next 10 years.

Richard Younger-Ross: Is the difficulty the fact that the tariff arrangement relates to section 106 agreements for housing developments? Would it not be better to move to a straightforward tariff on development under the current constraints?

Derek Wyatt: The trouble with section 106 agreements, certainly in my patch, is that they are never implemented. They are a bribe to tell the developers, "Hey, build us the school"—or the village hall or the pub—but they actually build more houses. The problem is that section 106 agreements cannot be enforced legally. Section 106 helps the developer, not the citizen. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about having a tariff: 500 houses equal a school, a swimming pool, a village hall or whatever. Of course, as soon as a house built, people pay council tax, but they have no facilities until the last house is built and the road is adopted. They can wait four years for that to happen, which does not seem fair either. So I also have some planning anxieties.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the Olympics. I chair the all-party Olympic committee. I hope that, as fast as possible, we can get all the RDAs to produce an audit of what is needed. In the south-east, we hardly have any Olympic facilities. It is a shame, but that shows the extent of the weakness of the sports infrastructure built over the past 50 years. Although we have brand-new football and rugby stadiums and cricket has improved at the top level, at the bottom level, we do not have 50 m swimming pools, athletics tracks, badminton halls or proper facilities for gymnastics, dance or many other things.
	We could be smarter with schools—I know that a White Paper is due next week—and, as the specialist sports schools develop, we could allow them to become the hub for the Olympics locally by letting them have that infrastructure so that it can be used 24 hours a day. With breakfast clubs and homework clubs coming into the mix next April, this is the time for us to be brave about how we use our schools, and develop the Olympic infrastructure across the country.
	Finally, I want to commend something to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have introduced Sure Start. I can honestly say that Sure Start and the minimum wage are the two finest things that the Government have done—those are the measures that I am proudest of. Sure Start has changed people's lives in Sheerness in a way that we never expected. A couple of years ago, we asked mums and dads whether they would help with a newsletter, but they said that they could not because they could not read and write, and we have now got them reading and writing.
	On 7 November, we will have a meeting at Sittingbourne community college in my patch because we are trying to put together a pilot for sure finish. At the moment, we are letting too many people aged 14 to 16 truant. They do not go to school—they do not find school a place that they like. They are excluded for whatever reason. For the reason that we have begun Sure Start, we cannot let that 20 per cent. go. I ask the Minister to look at that pilot scheme and consider whether we can seed fund a proper pilot for a sure finish scheme, so that we can start to consider those students and give them back their dignity because they have none at the moment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in this very important debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel), who delivered her maiden speech. I will try to respond to all the points made, which, if colleagues will forgive me, may take more than just a minute or two. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has responsibility for the Thames Gateway, for opening the debate by presenting the case for the development and regeneration of the Thames Gateway sub-region.
	I have been grateful for the opportunity to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House participating in such a well-informed debate. As the Member of Parliament for Poplar and Canning Town, it has given me particular pleasure to take part in a debate of not only national significance, but local relevance to my constituents and almost all of us gathered here today.
	Hon. Members' contributions have highlighted the important work that is going on to improve the quality of life for people in London and the south-east, especially those living in the most deprived parts of our region—along the 40-mile stretch of the Thames Gateway. I shall try to answer the questions asked and respond to the points made by hon. Members, but if I do not cover matters adequately, I will naturally write to them. I am especially glad that the breadth of the debate has allowed us to discuss the social, economic and environmental impact of the Government's policies on people's quality of life and the way in which we are trying to fulfil their basic need for the right to a decent home in the Thames Gateway.
	The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who spoke for the official Opposition, welcomed the debate. He hoped that we would have an annual opportunity for such a debate. As the former chairman of the all-party Thames Gateway group, I agreed with his proposal. Given the significance of the Gateway and the fact that this is our second such debate, I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of the strength of feeling on that matter, although at least one hon. Member raised a concern during business questions that the debate was taking place to the exclusion of debates on other regions. I agreed strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said about jobs for local people and the training needs of the area. We will need to address and meet that challenge.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about flooding. I assumed that his description of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) in the previous debate as robust was intended as a compliment. We take the threat of flooding seriously. However, the fact that land is part of a flood plain does not mean that there can be no building on it. Much of London is built on a flood plain, as we know, so the issue is how we can protect the new housing that we need. The new developments that we build will need to be adequately protected. All our local partnerships will need to produce strategic flood risk assessments, as will individual developments.
	Our funding is going to such projects as the Rochester riverside. We are land raising and building a new river wall and river walk to create a 70-acre development platform for 2,000 homes, 900 jobs, schools and community facilities. Local planning authorities must examine flood risk when considering any individual application, which is why flood risk assessments that tell them where problems are, and whether or how they can be addressed, are important.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is one of those great avuncular Members of the House to whom I enjoy listening. Is he aware that flood risk assessments for planning applications are adding thousands of pounds to the costs experienced by people who wish to build houses? For example, although Canvey Island is protected from floods by a massive and sound sea defence, developers must add thousands of pounds on to the cost of houses due to the flood risk assessment, which is simply a waste of money.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall talk about the strategic placing of housing in due course. Any additional requirements on building can cause an impact, whether that is protection against flooding or other environmental risks. If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he and I can perhaps continue our dialogue when I reach the part of my speech about housing.
	Questions were asked about the Thames estuary survey. It notes that the Government are well aware of people's worries about flood risk. We are engaging people with the Environment Agency through the Thames estuary study so that we can ensure that effective flood risk management is incorporated into developments in the Thames Gateway. The question of balancing out costs will be a feature of the process of deciding whether developments should proceed.
	The hon. Member for Poole spoke about architecture. I thought at one point that he may have been taking a side-swipe at the dome. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) also referred to architecture, and I shall return to that in due course.
	The hon. Member for Poole asked for a breakdown of the £6 billion funding. I can give him a thumbnail sketch by telling him some of the amounts that we intend to make available—more than £1 billion for transport, £400 million for health, £850 million for the Thames Gateway budget, £41 million for the environment, £268 million for affordable housing, a similar figure for land reclamation, more than £1.5 billion for education and almost £300 million for neighbourhood revival. By my calculation, that adds up to about £5 billion. I am sure that he gets the picture.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to Crossrail and a stop at Woolwich. As he says, with champions such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, the station has very strong advocacy, and I will turn to our assessment of the situation when I respond to my hon. Friend's remarks.
	The hon. Member for Poole asked whether there were delays to the channel tunnel rail link. Our best information is that there is no delay. International services will be running from 2007, but domestic services will not begin until 2009. The rolling stock has been ordered and the development will obviously be a great improvement to transport links from that part of north Kent. I understand that people will be able to get from Ebbsfleet to King's Cross in 17 minutes. It is a major addition to the infrastructure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire made her maiden speech and, judging by the acclamation, she made a fine debut. Her generous tribute to her predecessors, her proud description of her constituency and her passionate articulation of her beliefs clearly demonstrate that her electors have made the right choice. I am sure that I heard her use the "S" word—Skinner—twice. Her connection of North-East Derbyshire's regeneration to the Thames Gateway might have looked tenuous on paper, but she made it work very easily. She will clearly be an asset to her constituents, and all my colleagues here have said that they look forward to her future contributions.
	My hon. Friend spoke about involving and equipping young people. We are trying to raise the standard of learning, the work-related skills and the employability of young people. We are increasing access to education and skills including, most excitingly, three new universities in east London, Southend and the Medway, so this is a big issue for the Thames Gateway and its development.
	Yesterday, I drew attention to the ability of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) to annoy the official Opposition; today, she invoked their sympathy with her coughing—so much so that the hon. Member for Poole acted as water carrier, which I thought a very gallant gesture. The hon. Lady asked a number of questions to which I will try to respond. On housing growth, I can assure her that we are not engaged in urban sprawl. Housing in the Thames Gateway will be focused on six strategic development locations in five urban renewal areas. The six locations will have a combined capacity to deliver 113,000 homes. Those sites have been chosen for their developable brownfield land, and we are focusing services and infrastructure around those areas and creating accessibility.

Daniel Rogerson: Given that this is a high-profile development and given the discussions in the House and elsewhere about climate change and the need to address it, does the Minister think there is room to look at flagship zero emission developments?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The new building regulations come into force next April, and I will deal with their requirements and the Thames Gateway development later.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East asked what was being done to speed up the introduction of the Crossrail Bill. It will be subject to the relevant procedures, but it is a complex measure that supports an ambitious and expensive scheme. I agree, however, that it is important not just to London but to the UK economy.
	On the issue of our commitment to infrastructure, the Government are fully committed to the Thames Gateway, which is backed by massive investment. We have always made it clear that it is about more than housing. For example, £6 billion has been committed by the Government in the three years to 2006 to support key infrastructure in roads, public transport, health, education, skills and environmental protection. I hope that the hon. Lady acknowledges that commitment.
	On the density of housing on brownfield sites, part of the development potential of the Thames Gateway is due to its reserve of brownfield land. PPG3 takes a brownfield-first approach and requires 60 per cent. of housing to be built on previously developed land. In the Thames Gateway, we have set an ambitious target of 80 per cent. of brownfield development, which is currently being exceeded. The whole area is subject to the 2005 density direction, so development must meet a minimum target of 30 dwellings a hectare. National planning policy is committed to a sequential approach to land use, protecting valuable green space as well as increasing density.
	The hon. Lady asked about the equalisation of VAT on new build and renovations. Our officials have met colleagues in the Treasury to discuss that issue and options for resolving it. We continue to gather information and evidence. The Treasury accepts the adverse impact and perverse incentives arising from differential VAT, but it is mindful of the impact on revenue of any change in the regime as suggested. We are constrained to some extent by EU regulations, to which VAT is subject. There is therefore limited scope for UK action, but the matter is under close examination. The Government are evaluating the impact of the contaminated land tax clean-up credit in a study commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and by Revenue and Customs officials.
	The good doctor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) praised local companies, but expressed concern about the planned Tesco development, which, as he acknowledged, is the subject of an inquiry, so it is inappropriate for me to comment. He asked about Government investment in the Swanscombe and Greenhithe master plan. As I have already explained, we recognise the need to engage communities. We are pleased about the combined partnership between English Partnerships, SEEDA and the local authority. A funding request has been made and will be subject to the ODPM's investment approach to the funding of new projects. Hopefully, the result will be known in time for the next financial year.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the primary role of the Thames Gateway was to service London, and he was concerned about social exclusion. He will know that we want the Thames Gateway to do many things, but the creation of sustainable communities is fundamental. Some Members suggested that "sustainable communities" was too tidy a phrase. We have juggled with its implications, which include a community with leadership, green space, housing, health services, schools and all the basic amenities. If anyone can come up with an alternative phrase we would be interested to hear from them, but having used "sustainable communities" for some years people on the ground understand the concept. By it we mean, as I outlined, places where people want to live and work. Obviously, some people will commute into London, especially into the Canary Wharf area, which now boasts the second largest financial centre in Europe—bigger even than Frankfurt's—but we expect to see economic and job growth around, for example, the Ebbsfleet channel tunnel rail link station, providing local jobs. It is this growth across the board, sponsored by public investment, that will tackle the disadvantages currently suffered by some Gateway residents. The new transport, skills, doctors surgeries, parks and universities will improve everyone's life chances.
	My hon. Friend asked about dormitory towns. Another example is the Bridge development in Dartford, where 7,500 jobs have been created, as well as homes and a mini-science park. The Thames Gateway must take on the whole package. My hon. Friend asked about the creation of a new agency with planning powers, similar to the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency. It is our considered view that a new body would over-complicate the planning process and slow down our programmes of development. My hon. Friend suggested that the Highways Agency itself may be holding up some developments and employment opportunities. We do not believe that that is the case. We accept that the Highways Agency has an obligation to ensure that national trunk roads perform effectively. It is fulfilling that role and designing solutions with developers, and it has invested £250 million along the A2 west Thameside development in Ebbsfleet, Dartford and Eastern Quarry.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked about environmental targets, possibly returning to questions raised earlier. The Government are setting high standards for our green space. The 2004 publication "Greening the Gateway" sets out the Government's vision for green space and linking green space in a green grid. We have already invested £26 million in environmental projects and we are raising the bar for the energy efficiency of homes. From April 2006, the code for sustainable buildings will apply to all Government-funded buildings. Thames Gateway projects like the Greenwich millennium village received excellent ratings under the EcoHomes system.
	The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) balanced his generous words for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire with a swipe at my hon. Friend the Minister, saying that her speech was full of jargon. Given the nature of her speech, the use of some technical language was unavoidable, and her contribution was well balanced. I hope that the House knows that my hon. Friend is very human and personable.
	The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford mentioned the divide caused by the Thames, which led me to believe initially that he was arguing in favour of a Thames bridge, but from his later comments that seemed unlikely. As the topic is the subject of a planning inquiry, I cannot comment further. The hon. Gentleman—singularly, I think—questioned the possible benefits from the Olympics, whereas many other speakers this afternoon stressed what a bonus they would be for the UK, London and the Thames Gateway in particular. There is a general belief and confidence that the games will benefit sport, culture and the economy in the whole of the UK, including his constituency. I am sure that that belief will be vindicated in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham pointed out the impact that the Paralympics would have as well.   My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked which Minister was responsible for regeneration. It is my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. I do not understand why there has been any confusion over that. He asked me to convey his concerns about police and health structures to our right hon. Friends the relevant Secretaries of State. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that, just by raising these matters in the Chamber, they will be informed, and he knows how to reinforce his concerns in the usual ways. I heard his criticism of directory inquiries and the difficulty in contacting the appropriate development agencies. I hope that the organisations that he mentioned will also have heard.
	On waste, my hon. Friend asked about the scale of development in the Thames Gateway. With the volume of people, the number of households and the infrastructure development, more waste will be generated. The code for sustainable buildings sets out how developers should reduce construction waste, and the millennium community in Greenwich has already shown that that can be done. Local planning authorities are, of course, responsible for planning adequate provision for all sorts of waste. The issue is sensitive and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. Planning policy statement 10 clearly states that regional waste management strategies must be implemented, and we are working with local authorities to ensure that they are.
	My hon. Friend correctly raised the need to protect natural habitats and wildlife, and, like him, we believe that communities benefit from a close relationship with green spaces. The Government are committed to ensuring that development is supported by green infrastructure that is accessible to all. A perfect example of that is ODPM funding for the Rainham marshes project. We have spent more than £5 million to open up a large site on the edge of London in Essex, where a brand new, high quality educational facility will be constructed.
	My hon. Friend has raised the issue of schools being in the wrong places. Planning authorities are clearly required and obliged to ensure that there is a strong spatial context for development, so that facilities such as schools are sited in the most suitable locations. Because of population shifts and the ageing process, however, we all know that difficult questions sometimes arise.

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that the Minister does not think that I am nitpicking: I want to emphasise that the confusion around names such as the Thames Gateway Partnership, the Thames Gateway development corporation and the Thamesgate consortium, which is a private affair, is a problem for not only me and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), but all of us in the public sector in and around Thurrock. The situation must be clarified, and I hope, perhaps with the Minister's prompting, that the development corporation will do all that it can, which might involve spending some money, to distinguish between its function and that of some private developers. The situation will be acutely embarrassing for the development corporation, and ultimately for the Government, if it is not clarified.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, which is fair, and I am sure that those responsible will examine the matter, because we must have clarity, particularly for those members of the public with whom we are trying to engage. If we find the situation difficult to understand, it will be much more difficult for our constituents, who do not have our experience in addressing such questions.
	My hon. Friend spoke of the scant attention that the Thames Gateway receives from the media, especially the BBC, and, along with the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber, I share his disappointment. Half of what was known as Fleet street is now located in Canary Wharf. At one point, I thought that there must be a wall down the middle of Canary Wharf that prevents editorial staff from looking eastwards and forces them to look back towards the City and Westminster. The development in the royal docks and beyond has not received the attention that it deserves, and I hope to hear my hon. Friend on "Today in Parliament" repeating his point about the BBC.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Thurrock urban development council and expressed his concern that progress has been too slow. Although I acknowledge that setting up new organisations can take longer than we might want, the urban development council is fully operational in its new offices, and I have been advised that it is open for business. I apologise because I cannot tell my hon. Friend its telephone number, which I am sure he will obtain in due course.
	My hon. Friend has asked why the Government are not considering another Thames crossing to the east of the Dartford crossing, but I am sure that he knows that two studies have already taken place. One of them was conducted by the Strategic Rail Authority, which examined demand for a rail passenger and freight crossing, and the other was conducted by the Highways Agency, which examined capacity management at the Dartford crossing. Those reports are with Ministers at the Department for Transport for further consideration, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is monitoring that very closely.
	In an eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) expressed fears about the Olympics being a potential distraction from the overall project of regenerating the Thames Gateway. I anticipate that the reverse will be the case, as the Olympics will accelerate the process. Regeneration was always going to happen in Stratford and the east, and I am confident that what may have taken 15 years will be accomplished in seven. As we build further to the east, it will be a natural, organic step to move on to the rest of the Thames Gateway.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that urban development corporations are not accountable. As non-departmental public bodies, they are governed by legislation that is passed by this House and are run by a board with local authority representation and officers at a political level. They are meant to, and should, work in partnership with local authorities and local strategic partnerships to ensure that policy and decision making is an open process that achieves what local communities want.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the housing mix and the possible lack of three and four-bedroom properties. I acknowledge his concerns, but the matter is being dealt with. It is not clear how widespread the situation is. We will issue new guidance on housing, including the housing mix, through planning policy statement 3. However, local authorities need to have a clear idea of the housing mix that they need as a benchmark for assessing the applications that they receive and approve.
	The hon. Gentleman asked us to ensure that east London transits are prioritised. As he may be aware, the east London transit, which is bus-based, is prioritised in the Mayor of London's five-year business plan. Construction is due to start in 2006, with phase 1—Ilford to Dagenham—to be completed in 2007. Further phases are planned and will be part of Transport for London's business planning process. The intention is to join the transit with the Thames Gateway bridge to create, with the Greenwich waterfront transit, a Thames Gateway transit.
	The hon. Gentleman's language, which included the phrase, "sub-regional economic development", may not have been to the taste of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. His encouragement for the Government to make brave decisions smacked of "Yes, Minister", but perhaps that is my personal reading.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), who is chair of the all-party group on the Thames Gateway, began his remarks by agreeing with the speech by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I was not too worried about that, as there is a lot of consensus on this development. I remember getting into difficulty with members of my local party when in my maiden speech I commended, in a qualified way, the previous Conservative Government's vision of regenerating the docks, inspired by Michael Heseltine.
	My hon. Friend clearly outlined the risks from the far right if we get the development in east London wrong, and the pressures that currently exist. I know that he campaigns very strongly on these issues. His description of the problems that need to be acknowledged and addressed was thoughtful yet forceful. He accepted that much imagination is needed, and that much is being used, to deal with those problems.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and I may be on opposite sides of the Chamber but, as he said, we share a joint interest in the future of West Ham United football club, which is one of the Thames Gateway's great football clubs—I would say the only football club, but other Members may disagree.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about casino development. At the beginning of the month, the casino advisory panel began examining locations for the new types of casino for which the Gambling Act 2005 provides. The panel is not due to report until December 2006 and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to go further.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about sport and culture in Southend and Southend council's support for local stakeholders to develop their vision for Southend as a cultural and educational hub. Sport is obviously an important part of that. We look forward to continuing the relationship with Southend and to its presentation of well supported projects in future.
	The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his local fire and rescue service. Having visited Essex fire brigade recently as Minister for fire safety, I am happy to add my endorsement for their sterling work in trying to protect the pier, which they were clearly able to do to some extent. However, I regret that I cannot accede to his begging-bowl request for £50 million—that is a pretty big bowl—and I am sure that he did not expect me to do so. However, there is much sympathy and support for Southend.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) made some positive comments about developments in his constituency part of the Thames Gateway. He sought assurances that serious consideration would be given to several other projects. He can be assured that the Government will do that. He praised Sure Start as one of the Government's successful flagship initiatives. There is almost universal agreement about that.
	My hon. Friend's final wish involved the application for funding the A249 relief road. It is currently with the community infrastructure fund. All the applications are being considered and I am therefore not in a position to respond to that request today. However, I am sure that he will hear something in the near future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and other hon. Members asked why Crossrail was not programmed to stop at Woolwich. I am advised that the tunnel for Crossrail is very deep at that point. That makes the development of the station at Woolwich expensive—a possible cost of more than £100 million. However, land has been safeguarded at Woolwich and it would allow expansion of Crossrail when the overall business case is strong enough or when the argument is won. Discussions are continuing with the London borough of Greenwich about the evolution of any future proposals. Given that my hon. Friend and his neighbours are already lobbying strongly, something may happen sooner than expected. Clearly, it will be a difficult argument to win.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the dome and it would be an omission not to reinforce his points about the impressive and ambitious plans to regenerate the whole Greenwich peninsula, including Anschutz's designs for the new entertainment complex called "The O 2 ". He outlined the training partnerships between the local college and Charlton Athletic as an example of key initiatives to show how local people can benefit from regeneration schemes that could and should be copied elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend asked how transport would deal with accessibility in support of the Paralympics. It is clear that Transport for London is already investing heavily in major station refurbishments. Part of the investment includes ensuring that transport is fully accessible to all through the transport hub of Stratford and throughout London. As arrangements for the Olympics evolve, so will accessibility.
	My hon. Friend made a powerful case for affordable social housing to rent. I hope that he knows that that is a key priority for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We committed £3 billion to it last year alone. I appreciate that some people do not regard that as enough, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said earlier, we are determined to reverse decades of decline in house building. We believe that we have made a good start.
	We have accepted Kate Barker's central recommendation that there should be a step change in housing supply. Our proposals are designed to tackle acute problems in the shorter term in a way that underpins our longer-term objective of creating a stable housing market where supply and demand are balanced. We have to confront the reality of the housing market in London and the south-east, where people have long waits for social housing and our young people are denied the chance to set a foot on the property ladder because of costs.
	We have the agreement of the regional planning authorities to provide 120,000 new homes in the Gateway by 2016. We are working to set the numbers into plans. Growth brings benefits and opportunities. The Government have invested £6 billion in the three years up to 2006 to deliver the robust infrastructure and public services necessary to support housing expansion. In addition, the spending reviews of 2002 and 2004 delivered a ring-fenced £850 million Thames Gateway budget, administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to support local projects that unlock growth.
	That investment will bring positive change to existing residents of the Thames Gateway and those who will make a home there in the years ahead. This is not just about new residents; it is as much about the people who live in the Gateway now. Community cohesion is vital both for the existing community and for those who will move into the area—the key argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham. Neither is this a programme for isolated dormitory towns; it is a plan for thriving and sustainable communities. We want people to feel proud of the communities in which they live, and our £26 investment in green space to improve the look and feel of a sub-region that had experienced decline and deprivation will help to do just that.
	The Thames Gateway is not a new idea. Indeed, London owes its very existence to the Thames, acting as a gateway to England. As in the past, London is still a gateway to the wider south-east and to the United Kingdom. As a celebrated and historic capital and a world financial centre, it is the rallying point for our nation. The Thames Gateway must see its vocation within and adjacent to the economic heart of London as an asset: an economic heart whose centre of gravity is moving eastwards, to the benefit of the Essex and Kent dimensions of the Gateway.
	London's potential was wonderfully exemplified when it was chosen as host city for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The impact of that honour through increased investor confidence and momentum will be felt not only across the capital but in the Essex and Kent Thames gateway. We all know that the Thames Gateway lies in an area of great opportunity. Let us maximise that potential, and deliver results right across the Gateway sub-region.
	The Government are committed to the growth and regeneration of the Thames Gateway, backed up by investment and a swathe of delivery projects on the ground. We are determined to take the opportunity that the Thames Gateway presents, and make a difference to the quality of life of thousands of people in both this generation and the next.

John Heppell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Right of Appeal

Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition that has been signed by 2,500 people, opposing the Government's proposals to abolish the right of oral appeal for visitors to this country, to limit the definition of family members, and to take away the right of appeal for overseas students who wish to come to this country.
	Since the proposals were announced, there has been a decline in the number of overseas students coming to Britain. The petition
	Declares that the right of oral appeal and current definition of family members for visitor's visas and the right of appeal for overseas students are very important to Institutions of Higher Education as well as to ethic communities throughout the United Kingdom.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government not to abolish the above mentioned rights and definitions.
	To lie upon the Table.

Council Tax

David Laws: I am pleased to have this opportunity of presenting a petition on behalf of 500 constituents, including the Chard and Ilminster pensioners forum. The petitioners are concerned about the high level of council tax, and want it to be replaced by a fairer tax.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographical or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

James Clappison: I rise to present a petition containing the names of 148 of my constituents, collected on behalf of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign. It draws attention to the year-on-year increases in council tax.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographical or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today at oral questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister of State said that neither he nor the Secretary of State was familiar with a quotation from the Secretary of State that The Guardian and The Times ran in October 2004. I have since checked with the Press Association and Amanda Brown, the journalist who wrote the story, and although she no longer has her notes or the tape recording made at the time of the teleconference with the Secretary of State, she stands by the fact that she gave an accurate report of what the Secretary of State said to the Press Association, which was subsequently quoted in The Guardian and The Times. DEFRA did not protest at the time that the story had been misfiled.
	In the light of that and of the inadequate response to other elements of my question to the Minister of State this morning, I intend to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate, as I was advised privately by the Minister that unless the journalist in question could produce her notes or the tape he would not return to the House to make a correction. Am I therefore correct in saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that an Adjournment debate is the only way to take this matter forward?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That certainly is not a point of order for the Chair. The matter has been raised here and noted, and it will now be on the record. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and his suggested route is perhaps the most appropriate one.

PULMONARY DISEASE (SURFACE WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Michael Clapham: I begin by referring the House to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, and of the Minister's English coal health claims monitoring group and the Yorkshire coal health claims monitoring group, which were set up way back in 1999 to deal with some of the challenges that we faced in maintaining the mining communities' commitment to the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme.
	I thank the Government for what they have done for former miners and their families, and for mining communities generally. The COPD scheme, which came into being following the February 1998 court case, had 576,000 registered claims. The scheme is now closed but it has already paid out some £2 billion—a figure that will increase substantially as all the cases move to settlement.
	I want to make two main points. First, I want to show that it is illogical and unjust not to include surface workers in the COPD scheme. Secondly, I want to suggest to the Minister that there are alternative options, one of which could be a no-faults option. The COPD scheme is administered under the handling agreement that has been agreed by the judges who oversee the process and receive progress reports on the scheme.
	A major defect in the COPD scheme is the fact that it does not include surface workers who have had to work in dusty areas of the colliery. The Government accepted the case for the inclusion of surface workers in the scheme and laid a minute before the House on 10 July 2000. I shall quote from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the minute. Under the heading, "Surface Dust", paragraph 5 states:
	"Many of the existing claimants also have potential extended claims for exposure to dust in jobs on the surface at mines. In addition, some surface-only workers have test claims pending. Exposure to dust on the surface leads to the same lung diseases as dust underground. The DTI has investigated the levels of dust prevailing in surface jobs in British Coal mines, measures which could have been taken to reduce dust and those which were taken. The DTI proposes to accept that British Coal did not fully meet its responsibilities towards certain categories of workers in dusty jobs on the surface. (If the liability is not accepted these issues will be put to the Court to decide.)"
	Paragraph 6 states:
	"In accepting this liability, the DTI would propose to miners' solicitors that compensation for surface dust exposure be handled within the current Agreement for underground exposure. How this would work would need to be negotiated in detail. Agreement would be needed on what jobs would be covered and on what levels of dust could reasonably have been avoided."
	As I said, that minute was laid before the House on 10 July 2000. It accepted that it was unjust to keep surface workers out of the scheme, yet despite the minute, by 16 July 2000 there had been reversal.
	It appears that, following a report from Dr. Moore-Gillan and Dr. Ford, who I understand carried out an analysis of dust levels on colliery surfaces, the DTI set out its position in compensating surface workers in a position paper of 16 July 2000—notwithstanding the fact that the minute had been laid before the House.

Kevan Jones: I, too, have seen the minute and referred to it in my Adjournment debate on the subject. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the minute was signed by Ann Taylor, director of the coal claims health unit and the senior civil servant dealing with claims throughout the administration of the scheme?

Michael Clapham: I have a copy of the minute with me. It is entitled, "Non-statutory liability to pay compensation to miners for exposure to surface dust" and it indeed carries the name of Ann Taylor, director of the coal health claims unit, Department of Trade and Industry, and the date of 10 July 2000.

Dennis Skinner: She is still there.

Michael Clapham: She is still in charge of the scheme.
	As I said, Dr. Ford carried out an analysis of some of the dust levels that had been recorded on colliery surfaces, but the DTI's reversal of position took place notwithstanding the minute. I cannot understand why the important evidence of Dr. Moore-Gillan and Dr. Ford was not considered before the minute was laid, or why, within a matter of six days and on the basis of the evidence supplied by those two doctors, the minute was reversed.
	There are a number of flaws in the DTI's position and I intend to list them. First, the coal preparation plants operated by British Coal were not subject to routine sampling procedures. That point is made in the minute to which I have referred, and the DTI accept it. There was no schedule for taking dust readings above ground, although that was not the case with underground workings. That was one of the factors that caused the claimants group of solicitors to decide not to go to court, and I shall return to that in a moment.

Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend accept that the screens on the surface—probably the dustiest place of all—meant that the doctors in 2000 were probably unable to see the sort of conditions that applied for all the years beforehand? What is more, does he agree that the doctors involved in the pneumoconiosis settlement knew about those screens?

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend is right, and his point about the pneumoconiosis scheme is extremely important. That no-fault liability scheme, introduced in 1974, covered surface workers, and it accepted that they worked in dusty conditions and were likely to contract pneumoconiosis. The claimants group of solicitors have already traced some 34 cases of men who worked only on the surface but who contracted pneumoconiosis.
	However, the minute makes it clear that the dust that caused COPD in miners underground was the same as the material to which miners working in certain areas on the colliery surface were subjected.

Dennis Skinner: Same coal.

Michael Clapham: I hope that the Minister will consider the very important points raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that the pneumoconiosis agreement applied to those who worked on the colliery surface, and that a number of surface workers developed pneumoconiosis.
	Secondly, the COPD scheme is flawed because there was little routine monitoring of dust levels on the surface. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned the screens that were used. They were extremely dusty, and all the more so after the introduction in the 1970s of the procedure known as bunkering. If a conveyor belt running from the colliery bottom, through the drift and up to the coal preparation plant broke down, production at the coal face was not held up. Instead, the coal would be put in bunkers, some of which could hold as much as 600 tonnes.
	The coal in the bunkers would dry out before it was run out to the colliery surface and on to the screens. The chutes used were often badly designed, with the result that coal held in bunkers over a weekend, for example, produced so much dust that one could not see across the coal preparation plant. Many workers in the coal preparation plant were therefore subject to large amounts of dust.
	Thirdly, I draw the Minister's attention to the rest-of-the-world protocol in the COPD agreement. That protocol allows anyone who worked in British Coal mines after 1954 to make a claim, regardless of where in the world he subsequently went to live. For example, a claim could be made by a former miner who had gone to live in America. However, a surface worker who spent all his life in collieries is unable to make a similar claim. That is surely a grave injustice.
	Fourthly, it is illogical not to accept that the dust that causes COPD in underground workers does not inflict the same disease on surface personnel working in dusty conditions.

Tim Farron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I assure him of my support in his campaign. Is he aware of pulmonary rehabilitation, which is a series of treatments, advice and interventions for people suffering from COPD? That rehabilitation is not currently available for people in my constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale. Does he agree that pulmonary rehabilitation should be made universally available for people suffering from COPD?

Michael Clapham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that there be intervention in respect of this disease. I refer him to the Government's investment, for example, in a constituency next to mine, Rotherham, where a new rehabilitation centre is to be built. It will allow families to come along for respite when the person suffering from COPD is undergoing treatment.
	The claimants group of solicitors considered taking the matter to court. The difficulty with a court case—this is why I think we need a political settlement—is that there is no schedule of dust readings on the colliery surface because British Coal did not carry them out. There was no routine, as there was underground—underground workings were routinely monitored and dust readings were taken. The evidence clearly showed that British Coal failed to take steps to mitigate the level of dust. That evidence is not there for colliery surface workers.
	The claimants group of solicitors was advised by its legal adviser that, were it to take the case to court, there would be grave difficulties. One was created by the Department of Trade and Industry, which said that, if it won the litigation case, it would seek the cost of that litigation and that could fall on individual claimants. Therefore the claimants group of solicitors decided that it could not take the case to court.
	As I have pointed out, it is accepted—the minute in part accepts it—that British Coal was negligent in respect of surface dust. Therefore, how do we proceed? I refer the Minister to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on coal health compensation schemes which was published on 6 April 2005. At paragraph 44, page 18, the Committee says:
	"We were encouraged that, after discussing the legal arguments against allowing claims from this group of workers and the correspondence between the DTI and the CSG on this issue, the Minister gave us an undertaking that the Department would give 'maximum consideration to resolving' [the issue]."
	That Minister was my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The Committee went on to say:
	"We hope that a solution can be found which allows ex-surface workers to be admitted to the COPD scheme. While we recognise that the DTI's current position may be legally watertight, it does not seem to us to be just."
	I ask the Minister present to consider bringing justice to the situation.
	There are a number of options. The Minister could do as the minute suggests and include all colliery surface workers who have worked in dusty conditions, such as in the coal preparation plants, in the current COPD scheme. He may wish to have a COPD scheme specifically for surface workers, but based on the principles of the current scheme. Alternatively, he may wish to consider a completely different option to bring in a totally separate scheme based, like the pneumoconiosis scheme, on the no-fault liability principle.
	That scheme could work by virtue of taking the assessment of disability given by the Department for Work and Pensions and relating it to a table of payments that would be paid to the person, depending on the degree of their disability as diagnosed by DWP. The table could be quite easily drawn up from the data that the Department already has. A great number of such cases have been settled, so we should be able to construct a table showing the payments that would accrue to a person with lung loss, from 10 per cent. right up to 100 per cent. If it were divided into tenths, with a payment for each degree of lung loss, when a person was diagnosed under the DWP scheme he could immediately make an application for a payment from the COPD scheme administered by the DTI health unit. Such a scheme would be much easier to administer. There would certainly be cost savings and it would deal with the situation justly.
	There is a fourth option that the Minister could consider: to introduce what I would describe as a post-handling agreement scheme. It would be similar to the scheme I have just outlined but would be for all former miners who had not made a claim under the existing scheme and for current miners who might develop the disease in the future. At the same time, it could incorporate surface workers who had worked in dusty conditions.
	I agree that the Minister will need to negotiate, perhaps with the unions and their solicitors, as to which surface jobs were the dusty jobs that should be included in the agreement. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the debate, the Minister will act on what his predecessor said, and with maximum energy work to resolve the issue in a just way that pays compensation to surface workers who have worked all their lives in dusty conditions.

Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on an excellent speech and on the four or five options that he has proposed to the House. I know that he has been a valiant supporter of this cause for many years and has raised the matter constantly. I applaud him for doing so.
	I shall confine my remarks to one or two aspects of the subject, as the hon. Gentleman said it all. As he rightly says, the Government allege that lawyers have concluded that there is no case to answer. I am a lawyer and I have spoken with a firm of solicitors in south Wales that was heavily involved in the original litigation in 1997 and is prepared to do the work for free. Those solicitors will undertake the pro bono work, but they will not risk their individual miner clients having to pay an adverse costs order, which is, I regret to say, the bully-boy tactic currently employed by the Department. If a person is threatened with an adverse costs order, even if his lawyers are working for free, he has to pay the bank of QCs employed by the DTI, and he pays heavily.
	How many people in the industry have been injured through no fault of their own, but through the negligence of the DTI and the coal board? They were injured in the course of their duties, yet they are expected to put everything they have on the line to prove a point. That is not likely. At the very least, there is a moral case, whether or not the legal case is watertight.
	There is a legal case. Where does the slate dust come from? As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is all the same coal. Both he and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone speak from experience. I do not, but I value the fact that they are experienced and saw things at first hand and can tell us about them today.
	Surface mineworkers obviously have a case that should be met. The Government are saying, in effect, "Well, take us to court but if you fail we will cripple you in costs". That is not a proper way to deal with the matter.
	In many cases, as has already been said, dust levels in coal preparation plants and washeries were even worse than under ground, although no tests were regularly carried out. Therefore it is clearly unjust that these employees of British Coal have not been awarded compensation under the scheme in place.
	We have heard about the note from the senior civil servant who, allegedly, is still in post. She had committed herself, but mysteriously two so-called medical experts decided a week later that the case was not so, and suddenly everything was reversed. That is not good governance.
	Miners who work part of their careers under ground and part on the surface may be included in the current scheme. The Department for Work and Pensions recognises pneumoconiosis as a prescribed disease for the purposes of disability benefits in the case of coal surface workers and dock workers who have had to deal with coal. So there is a clear contradiction in the manner in which the Government are dealing with surface mineworkers.
	The most telling part of the argument is that the men have a case that should be answered. They should not be excluded. They are suffering from the self-same disease as their colleagues who worked underground. The Government might at some point level the argument that there will be people who pretend to be unwell—I am not saying that the Minister will do so in this debate—but I fail to understand how any such argument could stand up. I return to the fact that it is the same dust and the same complaint. Any High Court judge would be bound to conclude that the slate dust came from somewhere—not from riding a bicycle or watching a football match. The presence of the dust caused an industrial disease and was due to the activities of people above ground just as it was for those under ground. I have thrown away a good part of what I wanted to say because it has already been said very powerfully.
	It is my understanding that the trade unions are prepared to instruct solicitors and that there are solicitors who are willing and able to perform their tasks for nothing, provided that the DTI drops what I referred to as a bully-boy stance and stops threatening people with an adverse costs order. That is the proper way forward. After all, many of those involved are getting on in years and deserve some comfort. They will still suffer from this awful disease, but will find some comfort in the recognition and acceptance of the complaint.
	The original NACODS case in 1998 was won through funding partly from NACODS and partly from legal aid, which is now unavailable. That avenue has been closed. The Minister may say that those involved should take out a legal costs indemnity policy, but that does not stack up. I know of no insurer that would provide an indemnity against costs in an action against a Government Department. If the Minister knows differently, perhaps he will tell us of any company that might be prepared to run such a risk. I have researched the matter and I think that there is no such company. Therefore that avenue has been closed.
	The four or five options suggested by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone should be commended and looked at very carefully. He has thoroughly researched the matter. There is support throughout the House for his views—it is not exactly huge on the Tory Benches, but that is to be expected—and they should be dealt with appropriately and thoughtfully by the Government in the coming weeks and months.

Kevan Jones: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate. I initiated a debate on the same subject on 16 October 2003. Sadly, we are sitting here two years later having seen very little progress. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has said, many people are suffering through no fault of their own because of exposure to coal dust while working in terrible conditions. The Minister who replied at that time—it is like changing socks, as the job seems to change hands every other year—was my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), and I think that the post had another incumbent before the current one. I want to raise the issue of the minute, which I raised then and which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised earlier. What I cannot understand is that the Government accepted liability for this case, and it was withdrawn. I want to refresh the memories of Members, the Minister and his civil servants—if they are here—about what was actually said. I want an answer to the question as I have never yet had a satisfactory one.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, the minute was placed before Parliament on 10 July 2000. I examined a copy of it earlier to refresh my memory. It is not ambiguous in any way in accepting liability. Paragraph 5 states that:
	"exposure to coal dust on the surface leads to the same lung disease as dust underground".
	That makes it clear in my mind and everybody else's that we are not dealing with different types of dust, but with the same types. It continues:
	"The DTI has investigated the level of dust prevailing in surface jobs in British coal mines, measures which could have been taken to reduce dust and those which were taken".
	It goes on:
	"The DTI proposes to accept that British Coal did not fully meet its responsibilities towards certain categories of workers in dusty jobs on the surface".
	When that minute was put before Parliament, therefore, liability was accepted.
	The interesting point comes in paragraph 8, which considers whom the acceptance of liability would encompass:
	"acceptance of this additional liability will mean that current claimants can extend their claim to cover time spent in dusty jobs on the surface",
	and then comes the killer crunch:
	"and men who have only worked on the surface will be able to put in a claim".
	It is therefore clear that we are dealing with the same type of dust and problems as those who worked under ground experienced, and it not only accepts liability but clearly states who is involved, also referring to people who solely worked on the surface.
	I did not get a reply from the hon. Member for East Ham. I would like to know—if the Minister cannot reply tonight, I would like to have it in writing—what actual event meant that the acceptance of liability, by placing this minute before Parliament, was withdrawn. What changed in that period, and who took the decision? As I mentioned before, a certain person seems to appear at all these crimes, the author of the minute, Ann Taylor. It is important that coalmining MPs and MPs who represent former coalmining constituencies get some honest answers, as I do not understand what has changed in that period.
	The hon. Member for East Ham who replied to my Adjournment debate talked about taking potential cases through the courts. I am sorry, but all that that will do is stuff the pockets of lawyers yet again. The people affected are getting increasingly old, are suffering, and dying. I have one constituent who comes to my surgery who can hardly walk. It is clear that he is suffering from COPD, as his doctor confirms. He worked in a surface job, and never worked anywhere else. It is not therefore the case that he somehow got this disease from some other employment.
	I have been proud of the Labour Government for introducing the COPD scheme, as it has helped many thousands of people who had their health wrecked through no fault of their own. By not closing the final chapter in the story, we are tarnishing what should be a very good news story. My constituency has benefited by more than £10 million, and I know that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has received a lot more, which has helped a lot of people.
	If we do not try to settle this issue, there will still be injustices. In my constituency and in a lot of other constituencies, those people live next door to people who have got a settlement. They meet them and talk to them. Such injustices simply cannot continue. It is difficult to explain to those people why they cannot get access to the compensation. I should like answers to those questions, and I make a plea to the Minister: let us just try to close this chapter in what is a very successful scheme that has helped a lot of people and is something that a Labour Government should be proud of.

David Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on bringing this issue to the Chamber for debate yet again. I will not cover a number of things because they were very accurately put forward by my hon. Friend—the detail with which he made the arguments was very good—but I want to reinforce one or two points.
	Like others, I congratulate the Government. During the last election campaign, the first thing that I did when I went around the eight or so miners clubs in my constituency was to congratulate the Government on getting money to people who would otherwise never have received it. I did that purposely because there were complaints in those clubs—there were always people who worked on the surface who never got their money. I always had to pre-empt those issues. In their eyes, men were being deal with unfairly, and we must to try to deal with that real problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said something very important: we have won a fantastic deal for working-class people who needed that money, yet the sting in the tail is that some really important people are not getting it.
	I started my working life at 15 years of age. I started at a colliery called Easthouses. There where 250 men at that colliery. The first job that I got was down on the hill—where the coal comes up the shaft and the young boys are down there on the tables taking all the coal that comes off—and it was really bad in those days, and that was a small pit. That is how everyone started in the colliery. No one ever went to a colliery and went under ground. They started on the surface and worked their way through. That was the nature of the business at that time. I went down the pit at 16 years of age—on my 16th birthday, indeed—and Monday coming will be the anniversary, but the pits changed after that. There was a drastic reduction in the number of collieries. Big, new mega-collieries were being built, and they overtook some of the small collieries. The complexity of the problem with coal dust changed dramatically over that period. There is an old saying in the collieries, "You start on the hill, and you finish on the hill" because the men were broken by the time that they had gone through their lives in the pit and they ended up back on the hill.
	The major change that took place especially in the 1960s, 1970s, but even in the early part of the 1980s, was that big pits were built, the small pits were closed and men were being pulled into the centre. Along with that, major pit plant issues came forward, a major change took place in employment: people were employed to work on the surface. That was not the case in the 1950s and 1960s. What happened in the 1960s was that everyone who was employed went down the pit, by and large, unless they were clerks or bath attendants. Nearly everyone went down the pit and came back up again. So the changes that took place at that time relate to the people who we are talking about.
	I worked at four collieries. I worked in Nottinghamshire for a period, with about 1,000 people at Rufford colliery. I was at Bilston Glen with 2,500 people, and I finished at Monktonhall with 2,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone talks about bunkers that held 800 tonnes of coal. The bunker at Monktonhall pit-bottom held 1,000 tonnes of coal. The bunker at the pit-top held 3,000 tonnes of coal, and the trains went under the bunker to take it out. There was no way that people could avoid the dust. I represented people who worked in those bunkers from the very first day that they started at the pit to the last day when they finished there. Those are the people who I am talking about, and we must rethink what we are trying to do for them.
	I remember when pneumoconiosis cases began. I was a young new delegate at the time, and I can remember that my senior union officials also had to deal with problems then. When the pneumoconiosis scheme began, it covered all workers, irrespective of whether they worked down the pit or on top. The bad side to that was when a union official had to go to the widow to say, "He has to get a post mortem so we can prove he had it." We became much more human at that time.
	We should not forget that the industry was a public industry—it was our industry—which is why any Government have a responsibility for this. Although the industry ended up in the private sector, during the time about which we are talking it was owned and worked in by members of the public.
	I am glad that the debate has been held today, even though I have missed two flights to be here. We must deal with this important issue. I hope that the Minister will rethink things over the next year. I think that he has everyone's interests at heart. He could take a clear position and do something that would be seen as fair so that I and other hon. Members who represent mining areas could go to that small group of people and say, "Look, we've got a deal for you that's right."
	May I make one point about the five proposals that have been put forward? If it is right that a man can go down the pit, work five years and then qualify, surely working in a prep plant for five years would be enough of a qualification for a person to suffer from dust. I leave it at that, and hope that the Minister can address some of the issues that have come up.

Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has secured the debate. As everyone knows, whenever he speaks on subjects of this nature he does so with a great deal of authority. He represented the National Union of Mineworkers for a good number of years and dealt with social insurance cases—he covered the whole gamut.
	Some of us saw what happened at first hand. I went to work at Parkhouse colliery in 1949. When we were told that we had to go on the screens because we were not allowed to go down the pit until we had done our six months' training, most of us dreaded it. Sometimes we could finish up in the timber yard and that was a lot better. The screens was the dustiest place in the whole environs of Parkhouse colliery because it was where the coal came tumbling down, with the result that there was loads of dust.
	I hope that the Minister realises that we used to get what was known as dust money. There would be dust money for the miners under ground and additional dust money—these were local settlements—for people on the screens. No one ever stopped to think whether that was fair. It was obviously fair because sometimes when we went down the pit after we had done our training, there was a thing called, "You're in the market". We were like cattle. We would be leaning up against a wall and they would say to us, "You'll go on one, two, threes; you'll go down the Tupton seam; you'll go here; you'll go pony driving; you'll be taking timber; and you'll be clipping on." On occasions, they would say, "We want three people to go up on the surface to work on the screens." We used to get at the end of the queue hoping that we were not called. That was how bad it was and I just want people to understand that.
	I rather suspect that when those two doctors—whoever they were—went to look at conditions, they were probably not those that prevailed at that time. The situation had changed dramatically by that time and there was a lot of technology. By the time we got to 2003, there were not many pits left anyway, and some were drift mines that went straight on to the surface. The conditions were not the same, so we are talking about a different thing altogether.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone talked about possible solutions. He has been looking at the problem for a long time, as have many of us in the NUM group. We are trying to say to the Government that we want a ring-fenced solution. We do not want a solution that the Government would be scared of and about which they would say, "If we do it for surface workers associated with the pits, all the other surface workers in other industries will say that they should qualify as well." Every single one of my hon. Friend's proposals is ring-fenced so that it applies only to people who worked on the surface at coal mines, and I hope that the Minister bears that in mind. We are not opening a great big door.
	The attraction of the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone is that the settlement would be on a par with that for the pneumoconiosis cases settled by another Labour Government between 1974 and 1976. How did that work? We had a sliding scale of payments, and the matter did not go to court. One thing that has concerned me ever since the court case in 1998 is that it encouraged hundreds, if not thousands, of solicitors to get involved. The pneumoconiosis settlement, on which my hon. Friend based his proposal for the surface settlement, did not involve solicitors to the same extent. We could have a sliding scale of payments made across the board, without recourse to individual payments. I hope that the Minister understands that that was the beauty of the pneumoconiosis settlement; we did not have this long drawn-out process in which every case had to be dealt with individually because it had gone to court—that was the tragedy of the 1998 court case. Our proposal will make sure that we cut out the hundreds of solicitors who want their share.
	The next thing to remember is that we talking about a ring-fenced figure of between 3,500 and 5,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone did not refer to that today, but he has done on previous occasions. We estimate that there cannot be more than about 5,000 people. Why? Because many of the surface workers have already been included because they worked under ground as well. We have eliminated all of those people; they are in the scheme that has now closed. We are talking about those who were only on the surface, which is why the number is very limited.
	I confirm what my hon. Friends have said: the Government did a good job in taking over the scheme when Justice Turner made his ruling. It is sad that it had to be done in that way. I wish that the arrangements had been on a par with the pneumoconiosis settlement of 1974, but they were not. Somebody had to step in and provide the money, and the Government did so, albeit that the industry had been privatised and the National Coal Board no longer existed. Already, over £2 billion has been provided. Probably another £2 billion will be needed; it could even cost another £4 billion before we have finished, with some of that, a lot of it, going to solicitors.

Michael Clapham: Too much.

Dennis Skinner: Indeed.
	What we propose today is for a limited number of people. We are talking about justice for a handful of people at each colliery who worked on the surface at a certain time, on the screens and in the preparation plants. The Government did a good job in allowing the scheme to provide money for more than 500,000 people, including miners' widows and, where the widow is no longer living, their families. I say that to the Minister because when we proposed to include families, so that they did not have to make a separate claim but could use the original claim, the Government acceded to our request. We have met different Ministers at different times to discuss many other subjects, and the Government have agreed to this and that. This is the last bastion. This rounds it all off. It is for between 3,500 and 5,000 people.
	I do not think that this Minister wants to let us down. He does not want to spoil the ship for an ha'p'orth of tar. We will come and meet him any time in the next few months, but we do not want further delay. We want justice so that when my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) goes to those clubs in Scotland, he doesn't think, "I've got to say something about the surface workers," but can go in and say, "I've got it at last." That is what we are after.

John Mann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate and on the clarity with which he made his case. This debate is well timed, because the Lord Chancellor and others are producing papers about access to justice. On Monday, I went to a TUC meeting on the unions' approach to access to justice. The Minister should view the problem as one of access to justice for a small number of people.
	In my constituency, more than £60 million has already been paid out, and we are talking about a tiny number of people—30 to 40 surface workers—who qualify for the scheme. They have submitted an application and would like the chance to receive justice. Some of them might receive a good settlement, but others, such as some people who worked underground, might receive a small settlement. Some might not receive anything—if there is nothing wrong with their chest they are not entitled to anything. That would only be fair, but they have not had the chance to access justice. It is not only hon. Members who are baffled—everyone in my community is baffled, and they all say, "Hang on a minute: there was more dust on the surface than underground." That small number of men should have access to justice, given that the Government are introducing proposals in the next few weeks under the banner of access to justice. We must ensure that that group of workers is not let down by the Government in their capacity both as a national Administration and as a responsible employer. As such, the Government can offer a flexible remedy to that injustice.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of those people face a double injustice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) said, many people who had surface jobs and worked, for example, in the screens, did so after being maimed in accidents down the pit. Their health was doubly ruined by accidents and by exposure to high levels of dust.

John Mann: My hon. Friend is quite right and, like me, he will know people who are in precisely that situation and have a significant grievance. They all say exactly the same thing. Of course, they would like the money, and some are so sick with industrial disease that they need it. Even so, the principle is the important thing. They have given their life building this country, but they worked in health and safety conditions that were not good enough. The employer is liable, and they want justice as much as they want money to maintain a decent quality of life.
	There has been a worrying development in the past three weeks, as 7,000 men received a letter from Vendside, a claims handling company that is owned by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, about the condition of beat knee. Their cases were lodged in 2002 but, disgracefully, the organisation is withdrawing the action. The Minister may be able to help by clarifying definitions of time and the expiry of claims. Some of those 7,000 men went willingly to that company, but others were hoodwinked by an advertising campaign that did not say that it was owned by the UDM. Some of those men had been on strike for a year and some widows say that their husbands would be turning in their grave if they knew they had been hoodwinked. As has become clear in the past three weeks, those with beat knee have been left high and dry because the claims were lodged by the union with the Government three years ago. Has that organisation lodged any surface claims in that way? If there is any danger of time expiry for those with beat knee or for surface workers, will the Minister confirm this evening that that will not debar people from continuing to get justice in future?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have no truck with the UDM, nor would I ever have. With regard to that litigation, I understand that there was again the threat from the Government that claimants who lost would pay adverse costs, which brought the matter to a head.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is wrong about what was in the letter from Vendside Ltd. I have plenty of copies of it. The company is withdrawing because of the cloud that hangs over that organisation. It is a separate matter. However, on the issue of time expiry, if the company or anyone else has lodged a claim, it is not necessarily a separate matter. I ask the Minister to confirm that for both categories—those with beat knee and surface workers—if anyone has lodged a claim in that way, time expiry will not apply. Even if we get justice for a majority of that tiny number, there will be a subset who do not get justice. That cannot be right.
	We—eight Members in all parts of the House—are appealing not for a good-will gesture, but for a gesture of justice to show that the compensation scheme is the best and the most generous in the world, because it recognises the scale of the industrial disease and the employer's liability for past failures. That applies equally to the small group under discussion. Let us get this small matter out of the way and continue the good work.

Malcolm Wicks: Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. Thanks to time availability, we have had a longer debate than we anticipated, which is useful. I do not think that I will satisfy my colleagues this evening, but I have learned a great deal about the issue from the debate. All I can do is promise to reflect on what I have heard. If I am not able to respond to all the points tonight, such as the one that we have just heard, I shall write to colleagues.
	Settling compensation claims for lung diseases suffered by former miners as a result of their employment with British Coal is a priority for my Department. As we have heard, the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—COPD—scheme is possibly the largest personal injury compensation scheme in the world, with about 580,000 claims registered. Together with its sister scheme, which compensates for the debilitating effects of vibration white finger, it represents a massive undertaking. Altogether, the Department expects to pay out up to £7.5 billion across both schemes. That shows the scale of the project.
	To date, my Department has settled about 270,000 lung disease claims and paid out around £1.6 billion in compensation for COPD, chronic bronchitis and temporary exacerbation of asthma to former miners and their families. However, I am aware that the rate of progress has not been fast enough. That is why my Department introduced new fast-track payments to surviving mineworkers earlier this year. To date, about 50,000 claims have been settled under the new procedures since February, at a rate of nearly 2,000 per week, compared with 70,000 offers for both live and deceased claimants in 2004 across the whole of the scheme. However, I am well aware that more needs to be done, and my Department will continue to work with its claims handlers to increase efficiency and speed up the issuing of offers to mineworkers and their families. I know that that was not an issue raised tonight, but as background it might be helpful.
	Let us now consider the contentious issue of surface dust. As regards former mineworkers whose employment was exclusively on the surface of British Coal's mines, there have been exhaustive efforts by both parties to resolve the issue. However, the Department has real concerns about the extent of its liability in that area, as I shall set out.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone noted that a minute was placed before Parliament in July 2000 that indicated a willingness by the Department to accept liability for men who worked on the surface. However, that minute did not state the extent of any liability. Indeed, it made it clear that the precise extent of the liability was still to be negotiated. I remind hon. Members that the Department agreed to pay—and does pay—compensation to men who worked both under ground and on the surface. That is because the Department accepts that where a miner has had exposure under ground that pushes him over the threshold of disability, even a small amount of further exposure on the surface could cause further damage. So I believe that the Department is meeting its obligations to men who worked in that area.

Kevan Jones: When the Minister described the minute, he used the phrase, "a willingness to accept liability". The minute does not say that. It accepts liability and goes further, by indicating that the scheme would now cover surface-only workers. It is not a matter of "willingness" because the Government accepted liability.

Malcolm Wicks: I think that it will help if I make some progress. As I have said, I will reflect on what I have heard tonight.
	There is a real difficulty about men who worked only on the surface. Some hon. Members with personal experience have told us about working on the surface and I have listened to their comments, which I do not dispute. However, the issue facing us is whether that dust caused disability, which has been the key area of debate between the Department and the claimants' solicitors.
	The Department's medical advice is that although a large amount of dust was present on the surface, the amount of respirable dust, which is dust that can enter the lungs and cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was not present in sufficient quantities to cause the disease in the great majority of surface-only workers. For that reason, the Department has said that it is not willing to make compensation payments to surface workers, although it is willing to consider individual cases if they are brought forward on a common law basis.
	The Department has always accepted that there may be some super-susceptible individuals for whom a comparatively small exposure to respirable dust may be sufficient to trigger COPD. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone knows that the chest diseases caused by respirable coal dust are also caused by smoking, and that smoking is in fact by far the commonest cause of those diseases in the UK, which is a serious complication.
	The Department wrote to the claimants' solicitors in February 2003 informing them that, having considered the evidence and arguments very carefully, it could not justify the admission of surface-only workers to the scheme. In July 2003, the solicitors announced in court that they intended to apply for a group litigation order to sue the Department over this issue. In order to be as co-operative as possible, the Department allowed solicitors access to British Coal archives at Cannock to help them to identify documents to assist their case. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is unusual to allow a disclosure exercise of that sort when facing legal action. That indicates how seriously this Government take their obligations to former miners and their families and our determination to get to the bottom of this difficult issue.

Michael Clapham: Access to the archive was obviously helpful, but it was provided because it was known that British Coal did not operate a routine, so a schedule of readings was not taken over a long duration, which is one of the problems. Because those readings are not available, the claimants' group of solicitors does not have sufficient evidence to go to court.

Malcolm Wicks: In November 2004, the solicitors informed the court that they had obtained partial funding from the National Union of Mineworkers and would proceed with group litigation against the Department. However, in December the solicitors announced that they were withdrawing the litigation.
	My hon. Friend will recall that at the Trade and Industry Committee hearing into the coal health schemes earlier this year, the claimants' solicitors agreed that a strong legal case in relation to surface dust and surface-only workers could not be constructed, and argued instead for compensation on a moral basis.

Elfyn Llwyd: With respect to the Minister, the conclusion at that stage was that a great deal of preparatory work needed to be done by the lawyers. I am afraid that it is not accurate to say that they concluded that they could not put a case together. Will the Minister tell the House at what point the Department said, "Individuals come to us on a common law basis, but if you fail we want every penny of our costs"?

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, we have to get this right. I will check the record of the Select Committee and write to the hon. Gentleman. I will also write to him about the timing.
	The only ground on which compensation can be paid out is that of established liability. Without that, there is no moral case to answer. The Department has gone the extra mile in allowing solicitors to establish a strong case for schemed compensation for surface workers, and they have not succeeded. That is why the Department has now denied surface-only claims, which would otherwise be held up in the COPD scheme indefinitely. In doing so, the Department acknowledges that individual cases may be litigated. Anyone who feels that they have a strong case should seek the advice of their solicitor to explore that possibility. The door is not closed on the possibility of claims.
	I should remind hon. Members that as long ago as the latter part of 2000, the Department offered a pragmatic compromise to solicitors to put surface workers who had pneumoconiosis, and therefore evidence of exposure to dust, through the medical assessment process, and to compensate them on a schemed basis. However, I am advised that that offer was deemed insufficient by the claimants' solicitors and was rejected. Subsequent developments mean that that offer is no longer appropriate in the light of further evidence, but it demonstrates that the Department has been willing to explore negotiated solutions all along the line.
	I can assure hon. Members that the decision to exclude surface-only workers from the COPD scheme was not taken lightly— it was taken only after careful analysis and consideration.

David Hamilton: I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand the argument. Is the Minister saying that if someone who worked on the surface for all that time has pneumoconiosis and proves it, they cannot come to the Department because the offer has been withdrawn from the table?

Malcolm Wicks: There was an offer and it was not taken up by solicitors. Things have moved on in terms of the medical evidence. On a common law basis, people can present claims.

Kevan Jones: Who made the decision, when and why? Why was the minute withdrawn from Parliament? Is the speech that the Minister is reading written by the same woman who signed the minute?

Malcolm Wicks: I regret the tone of my hon. Friend's remarks. If there is an argument with the Government about anything, the proper way to conduct it is with a Minister, rather than pointing to officials who cannot answer back. Although I regret my hon. Friend's tone, I shall be helpful to him by writing to him about the precise timing.
	The debate has continued for five years and the Department has considered carefully all the evidence and arguments that the claimants' solicitors have presented. I repeat that the Department will consider individual surface-only cases that are presented on a common law basis and continue to compensate mixed underground and surface workers on a scheme.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and other colleagues who have contributed to an important debate on an important subject. This evening, I have explained the position as the Department perceives it. However, some important points have been made and I shall reflect on them. I do not offer false hope, but I shall reflect on what I have heard and I know that the debate will continue.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes to Six o'clock.